[Harvey_P

title:Mantra SUNYSeries in ReligiousStudies

author: Alper, Harvey P.

publisher: State University ofNew York Press

isbn10 | asin: 0887065996print isbn13: 9780887065996

ebookisbn13: 9780585078038

language: Englishsubject Mantras.

publicationdate: 1989

lcc: BL1236.36.M361989eb

ddc: 294.5/37subject: Mantras.

Mantra

SUNY Series in ReligiousStudies

Robert Cummings Neville,Editor

Mantra

Harvey P. Alper, Editor

State University of New York Press

Published by

State University of New YorkPress, Albany

© 1989 State University of NewYork

All rights reserved

Printed in the United States ofAmerica

No part of this book may beused or reproduced in any

manner whatsoever withoutwritten permission except in thecase of brief quotationsembodied in critical articles andreviews.

For information, address StateUniversity of New York Press, State University Plaza, Albany,N.Y., 12246

Library of CongressCataloging-in-Publication Data

Mantra.

(SUNY series in religiousstudies)Bibliography: p.1. Mantras. I. Alper, Harvey P.,1945-II. Series.BL1236.36.M36 1988 294.5'3787-6489ISBN 0-88706-599-6 (pbk.)

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3

ContentsIntroduction

Harvey P. Alper

1 Mántra kavisasta *: Speech as Performative in theRgveda*

Ellison Banks Findly

2 Vedic Mantras

Frits Staal

Frits Staal

3 The Mantra in Vedic and Tantric Ritual

Wade T. Wheelock

4 Mantra in Ayurveda*: A Study of the Use of Magico-Religious Speech in Ancient Indian Medicine

Kenneth G. Zysk

5 Are Mantras Speech Acts? The Mimamsa* Point ofView

John Taber

6 The Meaning and Power of Mantras in Bhartrhari's*Vakyapadiya*

Vakyapadiya*

Harold Coward

7 Mantras in the Sivapurana*

Ludo Rocher

8 The Use of Mantra in Yogic Meditation: The Testimonyof the Pasupata*

Gerhard Oberhammer

9 The Pancaratra* Attitude to Mantra

Sanjukta Gupta

10 The Cosmos as Siva's* Language-Game: "Mantra"According to Ksemaraja's* Sivasutravimarsini*

According to Ksemaraja's* Sivasutravimarsini*

Harvey P. Alper

Conclusion: MantrasWhat Are They?

André Padoux

Notes on the Contributors

Abbreviations Used in This Volume

Bibliographical List

IntroductionAn ocean, verily, is the Word.Pancavimsa * Brahmana* 7.7.9

He lifts the lifewand and the dumbspeak.Quoiquoiquoiquoiquoiquoiquoiq"Shem the Penman," Finnegan'sWake

This Volume of Essays andbibliography has been

assembled in order to focusattention on the Hindu mantra,a common and vital buttroubling feature of Indianculture that more often hasbeen taken for granted thanmade the object of sympatheticand systematic reflection. Thevolume is exploratory notdefinitive. It may, I trust, beused as a general introductionto the Hindu mantra and itsstudy, but it does not offer any

comprehensive survey, nordoes it deal with the use ofmantras and mantralikeformulas in non-Hindu settingsor in those portions of Asiabeyond India where Indianculture has penetrated. It is myconviction that the essayscollected here speak eloquentlyfor themselves and need nobrief content summaries in thisIntroduction. Rather, I shall setthe stage for reading the essays

by indicating quiteschematically some of thethemes and issues in mantricstudies that the essaysthemselves raise.

Mantras: Why They Matter andWhy They Perples Us

In 1984, Sri SatguruPublications in Delhi broughtout an English translation ofMahidhara's*Mantramahodadhi, a sixteenth

century synthetic treatise onMantrasastra*. Prior to thebook's Introduction thepublishers insert a "warning" inwhich they disclaimresponsibilityethically and, Isuppose, legallyfor theconsequences that ensue whenmantras are used unsuccessfullyor irresponsibly.

If any person on the basis ofYantras as provided in thisbook commits any nefarious

acts which causes loss, etc., toanybody then for his actions theauthors/editors/translators,printer and publisher will notbe responsible in any waywhatsoever.

The Mantras/Yantras asprovided in this book if aretried by anybody and is notcrowned by success, whichentirely depends on Sadhaka,the author/editors/translators,printer and publisher will notbe responsible in any way forsuch failures.

The Mantras/Yantra bepracticed and used for the help,good cause and service ofMankind. These should not be

used for any nefarious means,the responsibility of suchactions will be only that of theSadhaka.

Is this disclaimer meantseriously? Does the publisherfear being sued by someonewho believed that he had beenharmed by the use of a mantra?Might a disgruntled devoteehaul his guru into small claimscourt because the mantra thelatter had imparted did not

perform as advertised? Perhapsnot, yet this disclaimerunderscores the fact that beliefin the efficacy of mantras is acommonplace of Indian culture,today as in the past. It furthersuggests the difficulty ofapproaching Mantrasastra *from a perspective at oncemodern and sympathetic.

For India, mantras are real,palpable, mental artifacts to berevered and mastered, to be

used or misused. While thesignificance of mantras is notexclusively religious, mantrasobviously play a pivotal role inthe religious realm. Instead, thehistory of the religious life ofthe Indian people mightplausibly be read as a history ofmantras. To be sure, there mustalways have been individualswho were sceptical aboutmantras. The extent of suchscepticism in the past is difficult

to gauge, but it could not havebeen great.* The possibility ofthe successful use of mantraswas, and is, simply a commonpart of the Indian mentality.

This centrality of mantras in thecommon life of the Indianpeople is indicated, forexample, by the observation inthe Rajatarangini* that, intwelfth century Kasmir*, thecrops in the fields wereprotected from Nagas* by

mantrikas*, "guards whoexercised their function bymeans of mantras" (cited inGonda [1963b] 1975b, IV:268).The general repute in whichmantras have been held isexpressed with uncanny forceby as "secular" a text as theArthasastra* (perhaps third-fourth century A. D.), whichholds that ''a mantraaccomplishes the apprehensionof what is not or cannot be

seen; imparts the strength of adefinite conclusion to what isapprehended, removes doubtwhen two courses are possible,[and] leads to inference of anentire matter when only a partis seen" (Gonda [1963b] 1975b,260, citing 1.15.20).

The difficulty we haveunderstanding and explainingmantras may be highlighted byconsidering the place ofMantrasastra* in India as

analogous (but it is notidentical) to the place of prayerin the West. Among themonotheistic religions of theWest, prayer has long beenunderstood

*The temptation to interpretthe Kautsa controversy asevidence of religious orphilosophical scepticismwould seem to be misplaced.

as conversation with God; it haslong been taken as theparadigmatic form of religiousutterance. The most commonform of prayer has beenpetition, but the mostprestigious form often havebeen considered to be praise,thanksgiving, and adoration,forms of religious discourselacking practical ends. (This isespecially true of the Jewish

and Muslim traditions and ofChristian monasticism.)Recently, a number oftheologians and social scientistshave suggested that narrative(story) rather than prayer(conversation) plays a primalrole in shaping human religiouslife. Both prayer and story areways in which human beingsuse language to domesticate theenormity of the cosmos,bringing it into scale with the

human dimension, and both arefundamentally personalistic.Whatever their importancemight be elsewhere, it isarguable that in India neitherprayer nor story is theparadigmatic form of religiousutterance. It is mantra.*

Most of us who study mantrascriticallyhistorians,philosophers, Sanskritiststakethe Enlightenment consensusfor granted. We do not believe

in magic. Generally, we do notpray. If we do pray, we try todo so in a universalistic idiom.We do not ask openly formundane, temporal goods. Ifwe prayed for the latter and ifour prayers were answered,many of us would beincredulous and deeplyembarrassed. In contrast toprayer and story, mantra isimpersonal. In contrast to themost "desirable" forms of

prayer, it is often practical.According to the standards ofmodern science, mantras areirrational. Mantrasastra * thusshares neither the prestige ofmodernity nor the lingeringprestige of traditional Westernreligion. Perhaps for this reasonit has fallen through the cracksof Indology. As an impersonal,often practical form of religiousutterance, yet associated with asophisticated civilization,

mantra invites special attention.

Definition

Earlier studies of mantra oftenbegan by proposing formal orinformal definitions. Anenumeration of thesedefinitions is beyond the scopeof this introduction and, in anycase, would serve little purpose.But, one should note theheterogeneity of the variousdefinitions. Gonda (1963b) and

Bharati (1965) represent the twopoles.

Gonda treats definition quiteinformally and tends to use it todescribe the understanding ofmantra in whatever text orsecondary source with whichhe happens to be dealing.Therefore, it is not unusual forhim to move effortlesslythrough a series of "definitions"within a few pages. Gonda([1963b] 1975, IV:251) first

focuses on the Veda anddefines mantra "provisionallyand for practical purposes" as"a general

*Coburn (1984b, 450, n. 10)surely is correct in qualifyingthe suggestion that story is theparadigmatic form ofreligious utterance. Theprimacy of mantra is implicitin the first category ofCoburn's fivefold typology (p.452).

name for the formulas, versesor sequences of words in prosewhich contain praise ..., arebelieved to have magical,religious, or spiritual efficiency,are recited, muttered or sung inthe Vedic ritual and which arecollected in the methodicallyarranged corpora of Vedictexts." He immediately qualifiesthis by adding that the wordapplies to "comparable

'formulas' of different originused in the post-vedic cults."Focusing on practical morality(dandaniti *), Gonda (p. 259)offers a second definition ofmantra as "consultation,resolution, advice, counsel,design, plan, secret." Movingon to classical Hinduism (p.271), he offers a thirddefinition, notable for itsanthropological and heuristicbreadth: In the religious

practice of the Hindu age, aswell as earlier, the term mantra"covers also all potent (so-called magical) forms of texts,words, sounds, letters, whichbring good luck to those whoknow or 'possess' them and evilto their enemies.'' By the verynext page, Gonda has movedon to another, Tantric, contextand defines mantra as "a power(sakti-*) in the form offormulated and expressed

thought."

Bharati's strategy (1965, 105-11)could not be more divergent.After surveying attempts at adefinition of mantra by scholarssuch as Bhattacharya, Eliade,von Glasenapp, Govinda,Guenther, Majumdar,Woodroffe, and Zimmer, heoffers his own succinct, formaldefinition: "A mantra is aquasi-morpheme or a series ofquasi-morphemes, or a series of

mixed genuine and quasi-morphemes arranged inconventional patterns, based oncodified esoteric traditions, andpassed on from one preceptorto one disciple in the course ofa prescribed initiation" (p. 111).

Whatever the advantages ofsuch informal and formaldefinitions, generally speaking,the essays in this volume do notfind the problem of definition aprofitable point of departure. A

loose working consensus,however, may be discerned inthe way many of them take thescope of the term mantra. First,they assume that a mantra iswhatever anyone in a positionto know calls a mantra.*Second, they usually assumethat the term and thephenomenon are notcoextensive. Third, theyrecognize that, as far back asthe evidence goes, there has

been a large family of Indictermse.g., brahman, stobha,bija*, kavaca, dharani*,yamala*employed in varioustraditions and periods to nameespecially potent "words" and"sounds." Sometimes, theseterms have been used withoverlapping or roughlysynonomous meanings, oftenthey have been used withtechnical precision. When theyare used technically, their exact

force and meaning can bedetermined only through anexegesis that is text andtradition specific. Finally, thereis a recognition that the

*In this they stand in thecompany of Sayana*, thesixteenth century exegete, whostipulated that a mantra isbest defined as that which thepriests who are performing asacrifice call a mantra:yajnikasamakhyanasya*nirdosalaksanatvat* (Sontakke

and Kashikar 1933, 1.16).Sayana* is ultimatelyfollowing Prabhakara's*position (cf. Jha [1942] 1964,160, and Murty 1959, 26).

precision of the texts cannot beread into social usage withoutcaution. On the popular level,words such as mantra long agoacquired a broad, if imprecisemeaning.

History

Jan Gonda has longchampioned the view thatcertain continuities in Indianculture undergird and facilitate

the admittedly realdiscontinuities. Thus, it can beno surprise when he quotes along passage discussing mantrafrom the twentieth century neo-Hindu mystic Sri * Aurobindoand comments, "The survey ofthe Vedic uses of the term[mantra] will show that theessence of [Aurobindo'sinterpretation] is indeed alreadycharacteristic of the mantras ofthe Vedic period,one of the

numerous indicia of theagelong continuity of Indianreligious thought" ([1963b]1975, IV:253). Suchgeneralizations are dangerous,for they tend to reify traditionalIndian culture and suggest thatit was an unchanging monolith.Nonetheless, my study ofmantra leads me to concludethat Gonda is correct in somelarge measure. The history ofMantrasastra* strikes me

overwhelmingly as a set ofvariations on a theme: Thefurther afield, the more"rococo," the development gets,the more it reaffirms its originalcharacter. In this, it might beapt to compare the history ofMantrasastra* to thedevelopment of a raga*. In therealm of mantra there has beenforward movement; there hasbeen no revolution.

The essays in this volume

present diverse evidence ofhistorical change and historicalcontinuity. Quite naturally,readers will form their ownjudgments concerning theimport of this evidence. Itmight, however, be useful todraw attention to three pointsthat relate directly to theassessment of the balancebetween continuity anddiscontinuity in Mantrasastra*.(1) The historical origin of the

mantra is not easilyreconstructed on the basis ofthe surviving documents.Nonetheless, as Findly shows,the RV* itself containsevidence of a fundamentaltransformation that created themantra as the traditionsubsequently knew it. In otherwords, the journey from poeticinspiration to ritual utilization isnoticeable from the start. (2)The evidence presented by

Staal, and Wheelock,underlines the historicalcontinuity of mantra from theperiod of SV to the Tantras.The parallel between Vedic andTantric deformations ofordinary, otherwiselinguistically meaningful,sentences is particularlysuggestive. In a sense, thepatterned repetitions of japa arethe theistic and meditativecorrelates of the ritual

deconstruction of the texts inthe tradition of Brahmanicsacrifice. (3) Several of theessays that deal with classicalHinduismOberhammer, Gupta,and especiallyRocherunderscore the difficultyof drawing hard and fastdistinctions between differentperiods of mantras. Thedistinction between Vedic,Puranic*,

and Tantric mantras must beconsidered one of those piousorganizational fictions in whichIndian culture, like mostcultures, abounds.

Funtion

As a tool of humanintentionality, mantras areprotean. They are used in anastonishing variety of contexts,for a plethora of purposes, with

a multitude of informingemotions, and by the widestvariety of individuals. Gonda([1963b] 1975b, IV:250)nonetheless asserts that the termmantra has "kept a definitesemantic kernel." Manyscholars might feel that thisjudgment is correct, yet neitherGonda nor anyone else hasreally demonstrated exactly thelimits and content of thissemantic kernel. Lurking

behind our sense of thecommonality of mantras onecan sense the instinctiveconclusion of the rationalist.After all, nothing reallydistinguishes one magicformula from another: Whetherone is trying to hail a taxi inNew York during rush hour,trying to post a packageoverseas from an Indian postoffice, or even trying to dodgethe explosions while crossing a

mine field, reciting a mantraanymantrawill be as ineffective asreciting anything else.

The tradition, in contrast, takesfor granted that mantras areanything but arbitrary andinterchangeable. Each of themis understood to be a finelyhoned instrument for exercisingpower, a tool designed for aparticular task, which willachieve a particular end when,and only when, it is used in a

particular manner. Mantras,according to this view, are asdistinct from each other as arehammers from screwdrivers.More critically, they are takento be as distinct from each otheras are individuals. Thisconviction is illustrated, forexample, by the Pancaratra *conviction that "each letter ofthe matrka* is in its own right amantra with a distinctpersonality" (Gupta, this

volume, italics mine), by theproliferation of different sortsof initiations (diksas*), as wellas by the well-known proclivityof certain devotees to collectgurus the way some Americanscollect baseball cards.*

It is dear that mantras areunderstood by the tradition aspolyvalent instruments ofpower. Debating what reallycounts as a mantra and whatdefines it as a mantra is unlikely

to yield interesting results.Listing all of the situations inwhich mantras may be usedmay or may not be theoreticallypossible.** In any case, it isimpractical without morecomputer time thanimpecunious Sanskritists arelikely to command. How-

*For example, Bharati (1965,197, n. 3) cites a story fromthe SkandaP, in which a monkacquired thirty-three different

diksas* that were imparted byno less than thirty-threegurus, one of whom was acrow.**The tradition seems to holdthat the number of mantras isfinite but very large. Hence, itought to be theoretically possibleto provide an exhaustive list ofthe contexts in which they may beused, but I would demur.Although the traditioncharacteristically denies this, aninfinity of new mantras may becreated, just as one may create

an infinity of new sentences in anatural language.

ever, it is possible to get ahandle on the sorts of situationsin which mantrascharacteristically are used.Many scholars have suggestedthe need for classifying theintented force of mantricutterance. Gonda ([1963b]1975b, IV:249) speaks ofmantras being "invocatory,""evocatory," ''deprecatory," and"conservatory." Bharati (1965,

111 ff) more cogently proposesa threefold division of thepurpose of mantric utterance:"propitiation," "acquisition,"and "identification." Many otherschemes of classification havebeen proposed, but none hasyet won general acceptance.

Perhaps foolishly, I wish toenter this fray by suggesting asimple foursided grid (seeFigure 1) in whose terms anyparticular use of a mantra might

be placed for the purpose ofcomparison. The grid has twoscales, each of which isunderstood as a continuum. Itis my conviction that few if anymantric utterances would everexemplify a single, "pure"character. Human life is toocomplex and too rich for that tobe the case. Placement of aparticular mantra within thiscontinuum, thus, is meant tosuggest its relative character.

The horizontal scale showsintentionality. Towards the leftpole I place mantras utteredpredominantly to achieve somespecific practical goal; e.g., thedisovery of lost cattle, the cureof impotence or barrenness, apassing grade on a universityexamination. Towards the rightpole I place mantras utteredpredominantly to achieve sometranscendental goal; e.g., escapefrom samsara *, the diminution

of the effect of bad karma,transportation to the realm ofthe god to whom one isdevoted. The left pole I labelquotidian; the fight pole I labelredemptive. By the

Figure 1.Grid for Comparing Mantras

former term, I designatepurposes informed by the needto cope with the multitudinousdilemmas of daily life. By thelatter term, I designate purposesinformed by the desire to copewith the human condition as awhole. I choose these termsprecisely to avoid morecommon terms that alreadycarry a heavy burden ofconnotations.*

The vertical scale showslinguisticality. Towards the topI place mantras that are entirelyintelligible as sentences in anordinary language; e.g., theGayatri *. Towards the bottompole I place mantras that,however they may be decoded,are in no way intelligible asordinary language inthemselves; e.g., bija* mantras.Here, too, it seems to me thatthere is a continuum, rather

than an absolute distinction. Ifone takes the ritual and socialcontext of Mantrasastra* intoconsideration, all or mostmantras may be understood toshare the characters of bothlinguisticality andalinguisticality.

The placement of items inFigure I suggests how a gridmight be employed to situateboth classes and particularinstances of mantric utterance

for comparison. Thus, it seemsto me, that mantras used in thedomestic (grhya*) ritualtypically are quotidian andlinguistic in comparison tothose use in Tantra, which tendto be characteristicallyredemptive and alinguistic.Conversely, it seems to me thatthe mantras used in the Srauta*ritual and devotionally show ahigh degree of variation interms of both the intentions

with which they are used andtheir linguisticality. In any case,I shall not attempt to argue myparticular historical judgmentshere; I merely wish to suggest aprocedure for classification thatreaders might test against theevidence presented in thisvolume.

Method

The reader will find nomethodological manifesto in

this volume. There is nounanimity among thecontributors concerning thedescription and classification ofmantras or the most fruitfulway to study them. Rather, theconsensus is that mantras meritstudy and that this study willyield the most interesting resultsif informed by careful method,be that method anthropolgoical,historical, philological, orphilosophical. Moreover,

certain themes and issues recuras leitmotifs through the essays.In the remainder of theIntroduction, I shall drawattention to some of theserecurring motifs. Among them,two are fundamental: the

* Quotidien, of course, is acommon French adjective fordaily. Its use in this contextwas suggested to meoriginally by the subtitle ofBrunner (1963). I cannot take

the space for a fulljustification of thisnomenclature here. Suffice itto say that I have attempted toavoid invoking the hackneyedWestern distinction betweenmagic and religion and topropose a terminologycompatible with otherdistinctions that have beenproposed to classify divergingsorts of Hindu religious life;e.g., Mandelbaum'sdistinction betweentranscendental and pragmatic

(see Mandlebaum 1966 and cf.Goudriaan and Gupta 1981,112 ff).

question of whether mantrasare instances of language and, ifso, what sort of linguisticutterance are they; and thequestion of whether and, if so,how mantras function asinstruments of religioustransfiguration.

There can be no doubt that JanGonda's (1963b) essay, "TheIndian Mantra," remains the

single most importantcontribution to the study of thesubject. In many regards, it is amodel of Indological synthesis,ranging widely over theavailable primary andsecondary sources. All thecontributors to this volumeremain indebted to it; many ofus remain under its spell.Nonetheless, without wantingto appear ungrateful, it shouldbe said that, upon close

reading, the essay's Indologicalstrengths are not matched bymethodological acumen. Manyresearchers have recognizedthat the mere enumeration ofmantras will never suffice. Theneed for systematic, criticalreflection on mantra emergesfrom Indology itself. Theimportance of supplementingIndo-logical inquiry withbroader, more searching sortsof analysis has been noted, for

example, by Padoux. The needfor philosophical precision instudying mantras waspassionately asserted by Bharatitwenty years ago. This volumehas evolved partially inresponse to the call of these twoscholars.

Padoux's remarks (1978b, 238f) merit citation:

All the [Indological]researches [previouslymentioned], important as they

are, still do not suffice for acomplete understanding of theproblem of mantra, if onlybecause they remain on thesurface: they limit themselvesto reporting what differenttexts, schools, authors, say onthe subject. They report adiscourse, they contribute toclarify it, they unveil itsrelations to other discourses, orits historical origins anddevelopments, but they do notexplain it: what really aremantra-s? How do they

"function"? What can one sayabout the mantric phenomenonas a peculiar type of humanpraxis and discourse? Those,indeed, are the most importantproblems.

How might one achieve suchcomprehensive understandingof the context, character, andsignificance of mantricutterance? Judging by many ofthe essays in this volumeforexample, those of Alper,

Coward, Findly, Staal, Taber,and Wheelockthere seems to bea general conviction thatprogress in understanding andexplaining mantras dependsupon filtering the results ofphilological-historical analysisthrough the critical sieve ofphilosophy.* In this we all heedBharati's recommendation(1965, 102 f) that mantra beexamined with the tools ofanalytic philosophy.

In subjecting mantra tophilosophical scrutiny, one cruxstands out

*It is, I am convinced, equallyimportant to collate theexamination of texts withanthropological field reportsthat examine how mantras, infact, are used. A companionvolume bringing suchinquiries together andsubjecting them tophilosophical reflection wouldbe useful.

as central: Should theindigenous interpretativetradition be taken seriously asinterpretation? To be sure,everyone recognizes that theanalyses of mantra by Indiantheoreticians can be studied inthemselves, as primary sources.The question is whether theirwork helps us explain andunderstand the phenomenonitself? The issue will be drawn

clearly for the reader bycontrasting the analyses ofTaber, Coward, and Alper, onthe one hand, with that of Staal,on the other. The formerdealingrespectively with Sabara *,Bhartrhari*, andKsemaraja*answer the questionaffirmatively; Staal answerswith an emphatic no.

Is Mantra Language?

The most fundamental

discussion running throughthese pages concerns thelinguisticality of mantras. In thepast decade or so, a series ofstudies by McDermott, Staal,and Wheelock have focusedattention on this issue. Far fromleading to a new concensus,their work demonstratesradicalseeminglyirreconcilabledifferences inevaluating the nature andfunction of mantra. In my own

judgment, this volume makestwo significant contributions tomantric studies: taken together,the essays make this differenceof interpretation apparent; andthey do so in a manner whichshows that only rigorousphilosophical reflection canestablish whether a problematicsort of utteranceand there isn'teven agreement whether amantra counts as an"utterance"such as mantra is

senseless mumbo jumbo (cf.Bharati 1965, 102).

The key question is raisedforcefully by comparing theposition of Staal with those ofWheelock and Alper.* Staal'sapproach is alinguistic,essentially. Largely, heassimilates mantra to ritual.This contrasts dramatically withthe speech act analyses ofWheelock and Alper, both ofwhom take for granted that

mantric utterance is a form oflanguage.

Staal's argument has developedover a number of years and hasbeen expressed in a number ofpublications. For this reason, inaddition to its historical andphilosophical sophistication, itis difficult to do justice to it in afew sentences. Nevertheless, aschematic outline might helpthe reader compare it with thatof his opponents.** Staal's point

of departure is an observationthat is unexceptionable at facevalue: "Mantras are bits andpieces from the Vedas put toritual use." This is the linch pinof Staal's position, from whichthe remainder of his analysis islogically deducible. Heobserves that the raison d'êtreof mantras, that context withoutwhich they are not mantras, isVedic ritual. Period. Hecontinues by asking what

mantras are like and respondswith analogies taken exclusivelyfrom alinguistic phenomenon:"mantras are like mu-

*As suggested above, theapproach taken and/or theconclusions reached in theessays of Coward, Findly, andTaber might also becontrasted with Staal'salinguiticality thesis.**I shall not attempt to trace thedevelopment of Staal's position

through his work; however, seethe relevant items in theBibliography.

sic," like the nattering of infantsand madmen, like the patternedsong of birds. He concludes,"there is every reason to acceptas a well established fact thatmantras, even if they consist oflanguage, are not used in themanner of language."*

Although a majority of thecontributors to this volume,including me, hold that mantra

generally is a linguisticphenomenon, Staal's caseshould not be dismissed out ofhand. His work on ritual,language, and mantrascumulatively makes adistinguished contribution toour understanding of Indianculture. He has proposed ageneral theory and established aprima facie case. He is thepurvapaksin *; if one thinks hisposition incorrect, then one is

obligated to demonstrate it.

Can Staal's position be refuted?Not as easily as one mightimagine. The most obviousrefutation turns out to be norefutation at all. If one merelypoints to the fact that some, Iwould say many, mantras maybe translated into a naturallanguage other than Sanskrit,Staal might easily respond: Thisapparent translatability missesthe point. Even if the words

used in a mantra are otherwisetranslatable, even if theyotherwise amount to a sentence,a mantra qua mantra isuntranslatable. Its apparentlinguistic meaning isadventitious to its function as amantra.

Moreover, it must be admittedthat none of the advocates ofthe linguistic thesis argue for itdirectly in this volume; we allassume it. Staal's work certainly

shows that this is not sufficient.To show that Staal is in somelarge measure incorrectsomeone must produce a well-reasoned argument thatdemonstrates that mantrashould count as language.Unless and until that is done, itis futile to try to demonstratethat the utterance of a mantra isa particular act of speech.

On the one hand it is true thatfrom the start mantras have

been associated with special"words" (noises, sounds), suchas svaha*, that have nomeaning in ordinary language.This strongly suggests thatsome mantras, or all mantras insome sense, are abracadabrawords. It is further the case thatthere is no apparent correlationbetween the context or use of amantra and its being, in part,linguistically meaningful.Finally, there can be no doubt

that, while languages arepreeminently instruments ofpublic communication, one ofthe most characteristic uses ofmantra is the esoteric mentalrepetition of japa.

Against this one might observethat the evidence Staal marshalsis selected to illustrate histhesis, naturally enough. Otherevidence might be assembledthat, if not refute it, would callit into question, or at least,

suggest that the alinguisticalitythesis, in its pure form, requiresmodification. After all, somemantras are or containsentences. Whether one

*Staal's interpretation ofmantra as meaningless, as apractical matter, is tied to histheory of ritual asmeaningless. They arecorrelated but do not entaileach other, I believe. Thethesis that ritual ismeaningless does entail that

mantras, as ritual, aremeaningless. On the otherhand, one might argue thatwhile ritual in general ismeaningful, mantras are aninstance of meaninglessritual. Similarly, Staal'shistorical speculation, hishypothesis that "mantras arethe missing link betweenritual and language," iscompatible with his analysisof mantra but not entailed byit.

classifies them as prayers, theyaccurately express the intentionof a speaker. Gonda ([1963b]1975, IV:267), for example,translates a mantra drawn fromBrahamP 56.72 f: "Save mewho am immersed in the sea ofmundane existence, swallowedby evil, senseless, O thou whoart the destroyer of the eyes ofBhaga, O enemy of Tripura,homage to Thee!"* As this

example illustrates, the traditionof overtly meaningful mantrasby no means disappears withthe Vedic Samhitas *. Indeed,numerous examples ofmeaningful mantras, used witheither quotidian or redemptiveintention, can be found in awide variety of texts. See, forexample, C. M. Brown (1974,45) for a mantra to be recitedover a human being prior to hissacrifice and Goudriaan and

Gupta (1981, 79 f) for apropitiatory mantra to Siva*(the jackal, the word isfeminine, is understood as amanifestation of Sakti*), whichmust contain the sentences"Take, take!" "Devour,devour!'' "Create success forme!" and "Destroy, destroy;kill, kill my foes!"

Where does this leave one?Judging by the essays in thisvolume, both the linguisticality

and the alinguisticality ofmantras is arguable. There is noopen and shut case; neither isestablished. Hence, the verticalpole in Figure 1 must take intoaccount this argument.

Mantras As ReligiousInstruments

The thesis that mantras areinstruments of fundamentalreligious transformation iscuriously hybrid and, therefore,

curiously problematic. It arguesthat the utterance of a mantra isan instance of language, butlanguage of so peculiar a sortthat it shares some of thecharacteristics ofalinguisticality. Scholars withpositions as diverse as Renouand Bharatiand, in this volume,Padoux, Wheelock, and Al-peraccept versions of thisthesis. It is safe to predict thatmore shall be said about it in

the future.

To Bharati (1965, 102), forexample, "mantra ismeaningful not in anydescriptive or even persuasivesense, but within the mysticaluniverse of discourse."According to him, this meansthat mantric discourse is"verifiable not by what itdescribes but by what iteffects"; that is, "if it creates thatsomewhat complex feeling-tone

in the practising person, whichhas found its expression in thebulk of mystical literature suchas tantra, then it is verified." Inother words, it can be verifiedonly by "its emotive numinouseffect as well as in thecorroboration of such effects inreligious literature."

Such an assertion fits well withour preconceptions about themystical. We have beenmesmerized by the ineffability,

the alinguisticality, of religiousexperience. For the modem,especially the Protestant, West,religion is preeminently aninner state of consciousness, a"raw feel" of

*He comments that it is to beuttered when one immersesone's head in the temple poolof Siva* built by the sageMarkandeya* in Benares.

the numinous, a sensation thatis by definition private. WilliamJames characteristicallyobserves, "The handiest of themarks by which I classify astate of mind as mystical isnegative. The subject of itimmediately says that it defiesexpression, that no adequatereport of its contents can begiven in words" (1902, 371).

Time and again, we have takenthe religions of the East asholding paradigmatically thatthe ultimate (Brahman, Nirvana*, Tao, or whatever) is eo ipsobeyond words. Of course,certain strands of Indianspirituality say just that. Coburn(1984b, 446) remarks that forsome strata of Indian societysimply hearing, notunderstanding, the culturedSanskrit language "bordered on

being a numinous experience."If this is an exaggeration, itcontains more than a grain oftruth. Neither the social prestigenor the religious repute ofmantras depend upon theirmeaningfulness. As Coburn(1984b, 445) says "the holinessof holy words is not a functionof their intelligibility." On thecontrary, sometimes it seems asif sanctity is "inversely relatedto comprehensibility.''

Granted, this is often the case.There is, however, a counter-balancing theme within SouthAsian spirituality: that theultimate is essentially linguistic.From this emerge the mundaneconversations of human beings.As the essays by Coward andAlper in this volume indicate,this theme is especially wellrepresented in some of thetraditions that portray theultimate as Vac* or that teach a

Tantric sadhana*.* Perhaps,this should not surprise us. Theintellectual elite of the West hasbeen fixated on counting, thatis, on mathematics, as themodel for true knowing. Incontrast, the Indian elite hasbeen fixated on linguistics, thatis, on speaking. This can beseen scholastically in thepreeminence of Panini*; it canbe seen epistemologically in thepreoccupation with sabda*

(verbal authority); it can beseen socially in the prestige ofthe guru; it can be seen rituallyin the centrality of the mantra.

I hope that it is not out of placefor me to dose this introductionby expressing the hope that thisvolume will both help establishthe academic importance ofstudying mantras and win asympathetic hearing for them.India is not merely, or evenprincipally, the land of

Vedanta*. It is not merely,though it indeed is, the land ofVisnu* and Siva*. Ritually, it isthe land of the mantra. Toknow and love Indian religiouslife means coming to terms withmantric utterance.

The fact that mantras cannot bereadily classified as linguistic oralinguistic challenges ourconception of mysticism. Thefact that they are not readilyclassifiable as prayers or spells

further challenges ourconception of religiouslanguage. As somephilosophers of religion have

*I am not certain whether thesame divergence occurs in theBuddhist tradition. S.Dasgupta (1962, 21f.) citesthe argument in Vasubandhu'sBodhisattvabhumi* thatmeaninglessness is the realintoning of mantra. Gonda([1965b] 1975b, 300) addsthat Vasubandhu teaches that

expressly meaninglesssyllables "enable the initiateto understand by pureintuition, that the nature ofthe dharmas is meaninglessand to bring about therevolution of a unique andimmutable transcendentalmeaning which is the realnature of all."

realized, the extraordinarydiversity of religious life hasbeen "disguised" by the"poverty of examples" withwhich Western scholars havetypically chosen to deal (Sherry1977, 108, 50). Christianthinkers have rarely venturedbeyond monotheism;anthropologists have focusedlargely on the animistic ormagical language games of

tribal peoples. Curiously, left tothe side have been thearticulate, rational polytheismsof India and China.

An understanding of religiouslanguage in general is notpossible. If I may useWittgensteinian jargon, everyhistorical tradition drawstogether a family of languagegames and forms of life.Ultimately, the challenge of thisdiversity is existential. Hacker

(1972, 118), referring to thecategory ofGedankenrealismus,comments, "From ancient timesthere has been in India theconviction that mentalrepresentations, if reaching ahigh degree of intensity, arecapable of bringing about areality not only on thepsychological level but even inthe domain of material things."It is a simple matter to dismiss

this as primitive, but one oughtto think twice before doing so.

Mantras are many-sidedinstruments. Surely, they maybe understood in many ways.Like so many religiousphenomena, they are anodyne.They are meant to soothe us, toconvince us that, allappearances to the contrary, wereally are in control of theuniverse. But, mantras are notmerely instruments of

consolation; they are one of thestructural pivots around whicha mature and sophisticatedsociety has organized its life.Traditional Indian society ispredicated on its belief in theefficacy of the well-spokenhuman word and the well-maderitual gesture. May we explainmantras scientifically at thesame time that we appreciatethem personally? If so, perhapswe shall open up a new

perspective, both on the varietyof Indian religious life and onhumanity's capacity to givevoice to that beyond whichthere is nothing more.

Chapter 1Mántra kavisasta *: Speechas Performative in theRgveda*Ellison Banks Findly

AS THE LATE VEDIC AND classicalSanskrit tradition develops, oneof the increasingly centralconcepts is mantra as "eine

'traditionelle Formel', derenWürde eben darin besteht, dasssie von den Weisen der Vorzeither überliefert ist" [a 'traditionalformula' whose value consistsprecisely in the fact that thesages of the primeval past havehanded it down] (Thieme1957b; 68-69). The extendeduse of this term in laterliterature, and of the conceptthroughout the varieties of theHindu experience (cf. Gonda

1963b), might lead one tosuppose a substantialfoundation for mantra in thevery early literature. While thephilosophic and psychologicalbases for mantra, in fact, dobecome well defined in thecourse of the Rgveda*, and theargument for this will be centralto this paper, the term itself isan uncommon, often unclearcommodity until well into theUpanisadic* era.1

In the Rgveda* itself, we findtwenty-one references tomantra as well as singlereferences to mantrakrt* andmantrasrutya*.2 Although notconfined to the hymns of onedeity;3 three quarters of themantra references are found inBooks 1 and 10. Following thefindings of scholars who haveinvestigated the literary strata inthe Rgveda* (i.e., Arnold 1905;Belvalkar 1922, 16;

Chattopadhyaya 1985, 32;Macdonell, 1900, 34ff.; andOlden-berg 1888, 221-22, 232),I suggest, then, that thedevelopment of the termmantra may belong to ayounger period of Rgvedic*composition.4

Given this overall paucity ofreferences, one could arguefurther that mantra is not only alate Rgvedic* concept but,perhaps, an insignificant one as

well. Following this line ofreasoning, that is, that silence orat least vague and irregularmurmurings denotesinconsequence, however,mantra could be shown to attainprominence only after the otherelements of the srauta* system.And this, of course, is not thecase. In general, inattention to aterm in the Rgveda does notalways mean inattention to thecorresponding concept. And, in

this instance, I will

argue, mantra is a developmentcentral to Rgvedic * thought,which takes place at a peakperiod of creativity and whichbridges the transition from theearlier, more theisticsensibilities to the later,increasingly ritualisticconcerns.5

While the focus of this paperwill be an investigation of how

Rgvedic* thinkers conceived ofthe term mantra, it cannot beconfined only to those places inthe text where mantra appears.Rather, the investigation mustbe expanded to include otherpsychological and philosophiccontexts, especially thoseinvolving ritual speech, whichmight have given rise to anotion of mantra, particularly asit is kavisasta*, 'pronounced bythe seers.' Organizationally,

then, I will begin with thedescriptive contexts of the wordand move backward to what Ipostulate might have been anearlier phase of Rgvedic*thought, thereby showingchanges that the developmentof mantra brought about, orreflected, in the earlyspeculations about speech,ritual, and otherwise. While thisnecessarily means decipheringchronological layers within the

.Rgveda, I am less concernedwith pronouncing certainhymns or parts of hymns earlyor late than with tracing brieflythose types of changes inRgvedic* thought thatfacilitated the rise of the notionof mantra. Proceeding this way,I follow the line of thinking thatfinds one of the clearest, mostretrievable "chronologies" ofthe Rgveda* to be thedevelopment of its religious

thought (i.e., Chattopadhyaya1935, 35; Thieme 1975a, 53).

An underlying concern of thisdiscussion will be that thechanges represented by mantrahave implications not only forabstractions of Rgvedic*philosophy, but also forunderstanding those whocomposed and uttered thewords that proved to be soefficacious in religious life. Ifritual speech is performative

speech, as I will argue and asmost now understand it, then itbehooves me to mention boththe theory of how speechoperates in the Vedic srauta*system, as is done mostcommendably later in thisvolume, and, more importantlyfor the Rgveda*, those who arespeaking (i.e., the priests) andtheir vision of and relationshipwith whatever "transcendentother" empowers their speech

to be per-formative in the firstplace. While later mantricmaterial, as used in thedeveloped srauta* system,derives its primary power fromits associative role in buildinglayer upon layer of analogy inthe complex matrix of the ritualworld (Heesterman 1964, 12-14;1967, 22ff.), early Rgvedic*material, though it also usesanalogy albeit in a morerudimentary and clumsy

fashion, derives its primarypower from the poet'saccessibility and eloquentinsight into the divinemysteries. The development ofthe notion of mantra, then, fallslate in this period, as thoseattuned to the changingreligious sensibilities movedaway from the poetic insightborn of the face-to-facecontemplation of god to thecomplex detailing of the

mechanics of ritual.6 We willargue, then, that the termmantra, as developed in the lateRgvedic* era, represents a newview of ritual speech, which isperformative and agentive and,perhaps more importantly, amove away from the earlierfocus upon the internal personand person-

ality of the priest, whose serf-image and sense of vocationalidentity were so bound up withhis personal skills of eloquenceand his feeling of self-worthvis-à-vis god. The new view ofspeech, which supplants thecreatively eloquent insight, isthe known formula that,because of its traditional status,would effectively perform inthe ritual context.

The Power of Mantra

In his article on bráhman,Thieme raises the question ofwhy there are so many words inthe Rgveda * for ritual speech(1952, 101): We find, forinstance, dhi*, vac*, mántra,ukthá, stóma, gír and bráhmanwhich variously describe thosethings which are spoken, sungor heard at the ritual. Thiemeargues, and rightly, that the

Rgvedic* poets have a clearsense of the meaning of each ofthese words, never randomlypicking from the group butconsistently applying the rightword to the appropriatesituation (1952, 101). Therightness of a word, hemaintains, depends upon whatabout ritual speech the poets aretrying to express: "Der Hymnusheisst hier bráhman, weil er alsFormulierung dichterisch

geformt ist, gír, weil er als Liedgesungen, ukthá well er alsRezitation gesprochen, undmánman, weil er als Inhaltgedacht wird" (The hymn iscalled bráhman because it iscomposed as poeticformulation, gír because it issung as song, ukthá because itis spoken as recitation, andmánman because it is reflectedupon as meaning) (1952, 103).Given the assumption, then,

that there are specialized termsfor the various aspects ofRgvedic* speech, what aspectsare associated with mantra?

In examining those fewRgvedic* passages that mentionmantra, one theme stands outclearly: Mantra has power andthe source of that power is thetruth and order that stands atthe very center of the Vedicuniverse (Gonda 1963b, 257ff.).The pure power encapsulated in

a mantra and released upon itsutterance can work for oragainst whoever uses it. Shouldthe user, or beneficiary, ofmantra speak out of spite,malice, or ignorance, the powerunleashed by the event can befrightening, harmful, or evenfatal. For instance, in the handsof a priest who has been dupedout of his sacrificial fee by aniggardly patron (Geldner 1951,1.206n), the mantra can prove

terrifyingly dangerous:

When, Agni, the malicious,greedy skinflinthurts us [priests] with hisduplicity,let the mantra fall back on himas an oppressive [curse]!He shall be done in by his ownunholy speech. (1.147.4)

Here the mantra, whosenegative power derives its veryenergy and validity from thenormative ritual context, as

appears to be true for mantrathroughout the Rgveda*,7 isused outside the normativeritual context, much like blackmagic, as revenge againstsomeone who has violated therules and customs of the ritualby reneging on a contract.

The dur° of "unholy speech"(duruktá) gives less a sense ofignorant or foolish speech thanthe implication of blasphemousand even maliciously intendedspeech. Mantra, then, setsnegative avenging poweragainst speech that, similarly, isintended to do harm. Moreover,the violator's "duplicity"(dvayá) implies a breach ofpromise, a setting of false

action against true, which fliesdirectly in the face of mantra'sclose association with thefoundation of Rgvedic *thought, rta*.

In a second passage, from ahymn to Mitra and Varuna*,mantra is called raging(rghavat*), a term normallyreserved for the battles anddeeds of the Indra context.8The description of mantra bysuch a strong word establishes

quite clearly both the greatstrength of mantra's power and,again, its pursuing andavenging qualities, which canbe counted on to carry out thepolicing commands of the user.That the implicated victims ofthe mantra are called god-revilers (devaníd) furthertestifies to mantra's combative,almost sorcerous, abilitiesagainst powerfully maliciousspeech. Indeed, mantra comes

to be seen as the most potentweapon, verbal or otherwise, inthe on-going warfare among thevarying religious persuasions.Finally, I must note the cleardistinction this verse drawsbetween the realms of truth andfalsehood. Mantra here andelsewhere, is a martial arm forthe policy-making upholders oftruth (Renon 1949b, 268-69),empowered to seek out anddestroy the hostile pursuers of

all that is untrue:

And that much was not knownby these [men].The raging mantra pronouncedby the seers is true:The powerful four-cornered[vájra] slays the three-cornered [weapon of the gods'enemies].The god-revilers were the firstto age. (1.152.2)

Not only does the power ofmantra have dearly designed

policing powers against Vedicenemies, it also is so highlycharged that, unless properlyand carefully handled, it canfall back upon and burn itshandler. For this reason, thecomposer of a mantra receivesonly the highest admiration,even, as here, when thatadmiration is from the gods:

These [poets] have surpassedall with their skills,who bravely fashioned a

choice mantra,who, most attentive, promotedthe clans,and who took note of this truthof mine. (7.7.6)

Agni praises that poet whosecourage is great enough andskill refined enough to create amantra so true, so fine, that itspowerful energy can notpossibly turn back on him. Awell-made mantra, in fact, willnot only not harm the poet but,

indeed, serve as an amulet toprotect him from all danger.This protection, of course,receives its force from themantra-maker's ties with thepowers that be:

Place an ungarbled, well-setand elegant mantraamong the [gods] worthy ofworship!For the many assaults will notovertake himwho has come into Indra'sfavor by his deeds. (7.32.13)

Pure power, then, whether it beavenging, protective, or evenhighly potential but neutralizedseems to be at the basis of

mantra (Gonda 1941, 287), aconception affirmed in theAtharvaveda 9 and amplified inlater literature. The bases of thispower, like the power itself, aredefined dearly though scantilyin the text. From anexamination of the passages, itbecomes dear that the sourcesof mantric power are twofold,the first pertaining to its formand the second to its content,and both are readily accessible

to the skilled, initiated seer.

Mantra is empowered, first, bythe formal elements of its owncomposition. In 7.32. 13ab justquoted, mántrarn akharvam*sudhitam* supesasam*dadhata* yajniyesv* a*,reflects the qualities most prizedby poets in their language."Ungarbled, well-set andelegant" indicate the highstandards in use for forms ofspeech, which once thus

composed are that much moreassured of potency in and outof the ritual. Some see here anearly reference "to what musthave been a sacral poetics" inforce (Johnson 1980, 144n)governing the productivity ofancient contests. That theremust have been such rules isclear, rules regulating, at least,the general quality ofeloquence, if not every detail.Confirmation of this comes

from yet another mantrapassage in which speech, inorder to effectively extractblessings from the gods, mustbe both "pleasing" (sambhu*)and ''unrivalled" (anehás), thatis, matchless or perfect:

We want to pronounce thatmantra at the ceremonies, gods,which is pleasing andunrivalled.And so the men have willinglytaken up this speech

that they will attain all richesfrom you. (1.40.6)

A perfect mantra, here calledspeech (vac*, 6c), must be soexquisitely rendered that itconforms impeccably, wepresume, to rules of poetrysuch as those suggested by7.32.13. This perfectconformation to poeticstandards then constitutes theformal structure by whichmantra is empowered.

It is empowered, secondly andmore consistently in theRgveda*, by the substantialelements of its truth. Over andover, the poets remind theiraudience that the powerreleased from the pronunciationand repetition of a mantra isdue to the fact that the mantra istrue. Mantra's ties to rta*, thetranscendent truth of the cosmicand human orders, is dear. Inwhatever Indra does by his

own counsel (mantra), he istruthful (rta-van*) (3.53.8d); allthe gods who promote the truth(rtavrdh*) will be favorable ifinvited to the ritual withmantras (6.50.14cd); and achoice mantra to Agni willnecessarily capture the truth(rta*) known by and essentialto

the god of fire (7.7.6bd).Mantras, however, are not justin harmony with the truthmoving through the cosmos,but are in and of themselvesalso truthful (satyaá). Insecuring the spheres of cosmicactivity, Agni stayed theheavens with truthful (satyá)mantras (1.67.5); and themantra that makes known asecret ordinarily hidden from

man is true (satyá) (1.152.2b).The power of the mantra, then,depends not only upon well-tended form, but also uponattunement with a metaphysicalreality that, for the most part, isseparate from man.

This attunement, however, eventhough it bespeaks a realmnormally beyond man, is notbrought about by a miraculousdisplay of the divine but by aninternal searching in the body's

own organ of insight, the heart.Already in the Rgveda *, it hasbecome a consistent belief thatthe revelation of ultimate truthis not a matter of extraordinaryexperience dependent upon adeus ex machina. Theinternalization of the revelatoryevent (that is, the elevation ofthe self as the material andinstrumental cause as well asthe prefigurative result of finalwisdom) is a development

already well underway in theRgveda* itself, and one whichbecomes especially allied withthe notion of mantra. Mantra istrue ifand only ifit is formulatedwith the deepest, mostprofound understandingpossible, that is, with insightarising from the heart (Gonda1963b, 251-52). And, if it isindeed fashioned from theheart, the theory goes, it will insome way touch upon the

riddles of the world in whichman lives, giving power overthose things that remainmysterious. When wellpronounced, a true mantra,then, will hit its mark at alllevels of intention:

We would pronounce thismantra wellwhich was well fashioned forhim from the heart; he willunderstand it, to be sure:By the power of his Asura-

strength,the lord10 Apam* Napat*created all creatures. (2.35.2)

The mantra of ab, which waswell-fashioned (sutasta*) in theheart (hrd*), indicates the truththat is captured in cd: Apam*Napat*, a form of Agni, hasgiven life to all creatures by hislight and warmth. Thisrevelation, the humanizing andcivilizing aspects of fire, thoughdearly sparked by external

experience, has come to fruitiononly after internal meditationhas been given expression bythe self-styled skills of the poet.

Mantras formulated in the heartare true not just because theycapture the truth of somecosmological occurrence butbecause they themselves haveparticipated, and continue toparticipate, in these samecosmological events. In thefollowing verses, again

addressed to Agni, the poetpoints to what is true about theritual fire. Somehow Agni isresponsible for the propermaintenance of the cosmos that,incidentally, he has done withtruthful mantras. Mantras notonly capture the truth with theirinsight, well formed and fromthe heart, they are the truth,

they have actually participatedin the primordial revelation oftruth, and they thereforebecome essential to truth'spreservation. Because of thisparticipatory role played bymantra in the original events ofcreation, the implication is thatif the priest were to pronouncethe right mantra he wouldrepeat the same primordial, life-preserving acts originally and

continually performed by Agniwith mantras:

3-4. Holding all manly powersin his hand,he set the gods to trembling ashe descended to his hidingplace.There thoughtful (dhiyamdha*) men find himwhenever they pronounce(sams*) mantras formulated intheir hearts.

5-6. Like an unborn [god] hefortifies the earth floor,he stays the heaven withtruthful mantras.Protect the cherished tracks ofthe cows [of dawn]!All our lives, Agni, you gofrom hiding place to hidingplace. (1.67.3-6)

Like much in Agni mythology,the central concern here, andtherefore the core of theinsightful mantra, is Agni's role

in the daily retrieval of the sunout of darkness and in thepreservation of the sun's routeacross the sky(6). Because oftheir original, central role inmaking the broad spacebetween heaven and earth(5)and because of their power,apparently singular among theelements of ritual, to bring Agnifrom his hiding place (i.e., inthe kindling of the firesticksand the appearance of the sun

over the morning horizon),mantras have a doubly potentclaim to truth.

As Kuiper (1960, 248) pointedout and as suggested by theseverses, of all the gods, Agni,because of his secret hidingplace, is the god of insight andinspiration. As the fire visibleto man on earth, Agni links theworshipper to the fierymysteries of the cosmicrecurrence of the sun and the

dawn. Because he gives rise tothe sun every morning by themagical power of ritualanalogy, Agni is thought toreside in the place of eternallife, the place from which theworld is constantlymaintained.11 Agni has andgives insight, the revelatoryinsight of the mantra, becausehe alone knows the secrets ofworld continuity. The followinghymn, 4.11, describes Agni's

relationship to speech that iswell-formed and insightful and,therefore, immensely powerful:

1. Your delightful countenance,mighty Agni,shines out next to the [daytime]sun.Bright to look at, it is also seenat night.On your body, there is glossyfood [i.e., butter] to see.

2. Release the insight (manisa*) to the singer, Agnithrough inspiration as througha canal, when you, of strongstock are praised!Inspire us to that rich thought(mánman), most noble,which you with all the godswould most graciously accept,brilliant one!

3. From you, Agni, come poetic

gifts, from you insights(manisa*),from you choice hymns.From you comes richness,ornamented by sons,to the properly devout andpious mortal.

4. From you comes the battlehorse of special power, whowins the prize,who bestows superiority andhas the courage of truth.From you the god-sent, joy

bringing prize,from you the swift, quick steed,Agni!

5. You, Agni, with the eloquenttonguegod-serving mortals seek out asthe first god, immortal!to win with prayers (dhi*) himwho wards off hostility,the domestic, insightful lord ofthe home.

6. Dull-mindedness (ámati) is

far from us, far away anxiety(amhas*,far-away all injurious thought(durmati*), whenever youwatch over [us].By night, Agni son of strength,you are auspiciousto the one you accompany forwell being (svasti*), god!

This hymn is significant for tworeasons. First, it clearlydelineates Agni as the vitalenergy at the center of the

mysterious cosmos ["your . . .countenance shines out next tothe sun" (lab) and yet is betterthan the sun because it shinesout at night (lc)], but also as thegod who is most intimate withman ["the domestic . . . lord ofthe home" (5d), "the one youaccompany for well being"(6d)]. Moreover, the poet seesAgni as the god responsible forall the insight, all theinspiration, and all the poetic

gifts man can ever hope tohave. From verse 3, the hearerwould suppose that man couldnot think, imagine, speak, orsing without the bounty oftongues bestowed by Agni.Divine wisdom and fine prayerare gifts to man only throughthe grace of god. Second, andmore important for us,however, is the continuousassociation in this hymn, andothers, of the forms of insight

that penetrate the universe andthat the poet can turn to properritual use with words derivedfrom the root man. Althoughthe term mantra is never usedhere,

and may in fact not have been acommon term at the time of thecomposition of this hymn, thereis a consistent alliance betweenAgni as the source of insightand the expression (Upadhyaya1961, 23ff.) of that insight in aninspired thought, denoted eitherby manisa * or mánman(Sharma 1972). Moreover,these thought-forms won fromAgni would seem to be

effective in warding offhostility (dvesas*), a themereminiscent of the powers ofthe legitimate mantra. Notehere, however, that 5c says thatAgni and not the prayersactually wards off hostility;while in the passages specificfor mantra (1.147.4; 1.152.2), itis the mantra itself that isempowered to protect. Thismay indicate, during thedevelopment of the Rgveda*, a

shift in the locus of power fromthe gods themselves to thereligious mechanics of men.Still, from this hymn, andparticularly from 1.67.3-6, I candesignate Agni, and especiallyrta* and saty*, as the primarysources of power behindmantra's ability to protect anddefend.

"Prounounced By The Seers"

This shift in power away from

the gods and into the elementsof ritual technique brings to theforefront the second majortheme associated with mántra,that it is kavisasta*,"pronounced by the seers." Ifwe were to look through theRgveda*, paying particularattention to the words for"word(s)," one dear and acuteobservation would be thatmany of the words for ritualspeech have associated with

them correspondingdesignations for a specializedpriest.12 As Thieme says, "alsbrahmán 'Dichter' . . . istVasistha* durch ein bráhman,ein Gedicht, entstanden''(through a bráhman, a poem,Vasistha* has emerged . . . as abrahmán, a poet) (1952, 115).We would understand theidentity of the poet-priest, then,to be defined by his relation tothe word. The configuration of

the office and of the self-perception of a religious officialwould be bound by the specificdemands made upon him by hisspecialized type of speech. Thefigure of the priest is central,limited only by what he mustdo with the ritual word. In thecase of mantra, however, twovery interesting deviations fromthis pattern occur.

First, there appears to be nopriestly specialization associated

exclusively with mantra. Thismay be due to the special roleof the word itself, which seemsto have reference not to aparticular ritual function but tothe theoretical foundations ofritual speech as a whole; that is,mantra seems to be not afunctionally defined type ofspeech but, rather, a theoreticalformulation about speech. Ifthis is the case, then, it becomesdear why mantra survives as a

key term in the classicaltradition:13it is unspecialized inuse yet theoretical inimplication and, thus, perfectlysuited to a complex ritual thathas become increasinglydependent upon a sophisticatedunderstanding of language.

Second, the Rgvedic* mantradoes not belong to a systemcentered on the religiousofficiant, whose boundaries aredefined only by what is

required of him with words,but to an exceptional structure,peculiarly

adapted to the vision ofmántra, centered on the word,whose boundaries are definedonly by what is done with it bythe poet-priest. The qualifyingphrase for mantra, thena themeequally as important as mantra'spowerbecomes kavisasta *(pronounced by the seers), aphrase used three times14 ofmantra and twice15 of Agni andamply supported for mantra by

the remaining vocabulary of itsverses.

Lacking association with aparticular ritual function and,therefore, with a particularizedritual priest, mantra becomesattracted into the realm of thekaví, a functionary with a broadand varied base in the Rgveda*,whose parameters are especiallyconducive to the emergentconception of mantra. Renou'sunderstanding of the office of

kaví draws upon the followingelements: (1) god or man, akayí can unravel the intricaciesof an enigma, the central task ofwhat he believes is the Vedicword contest; (2) compositionof a hymn is only a part of aKaví's activity, for he alsoworks manually and orally atthe ritual; and (3) when appliedto gods, kaví refers primarily toAgni and Soma as the two godsmost closely allied with the

ritual (Renou 1953, 180-83;Velankar 1966, 253). Velankar'scritique of Renou, followingthat of Bhawe (1959, 29-30),deemphasizes the ritual role ofthe kaví, saying that the primaryintent of the term is to designatean individual "who had anintuitional knowledge ofcosmic matters, being giftedwith a vision owing to whichhe could have a directacquaintance with such events

and personalities as wereassociated with the creation" (p.253). Because the ritual is onlya symbolic replication of thecreation, he argues, knowledgeof all matters concerning ritualis secondary for the kaví (p.253).

An examination of Rgvedic*material on the kaví:, however,supports both claims. Kavíappears to be a general titlegiven to priests as composers

and singers of songs. Mostimportant, it seems to be aname that singles out thepeculiar quality of revelatoryinsight: Kavís tremble withinspiration (vípra);16 they knowthe truth (rtajna*);17 they workwith prayers (dhi*),18 ideas(mánman),19 poetic gifts(kavya*),20 insights(manisa*),21 hymns (ukthá),22poems (matí),23 and thoughts(mánas);24 they are wise

(dhíra*);25 their insight comesfrom the heart (hrd*);26 theybring forth secrets (ninya*);27and they have grapsed thosethings grounded in the highestlaws (vratá).28 There also is aritual component, however:Their words must show aspecific knowledge ofappropriate meter (chándas);29they must spread the ritualthreads (tántu);30 and theymust make pure the Soma.31

The roles of the kaví then,appear to be twofoldwise oneswhose words are filled withintuitional knowledge andtechnical masters of the sacredritualneither of which isexclusive of the other, ofcourse. One thing is clearthroughout, however, that thekaví is associated with speech:speech that has insight, andspeech that is spoken out loud.

From an investigation of the

mantra passages, the point ofentry into the kaví arena seems,surprisingly, to be less thefocus on insight than

the focus on pronunciation. AsThieme says, mántra "hat eineWirkung . . . die bedingt istnicht so sehr durch ihren Inhaltals durch ihre Form, die inpeinlich Korrekter Aufsagunggewahrt werden muss" (mantrahas an effect . . . that isconditioned less through itscontent than its form, a formthat must be safeguardedthrough scrupulously correct

recitation) (1957b, 69). If this,in fact, is the case, then mantrabelongs to the kaví systemprimarily on its active levels,that is, on those levels in whichthe insight bears fruit in ritualperformance. However, thiswould not precludeparticipation in the kaví'sgathering of insight, given theinner consistency and necessarydependency of all elements inthe kaví system. The following

verse, in fact, with itsdesignation of Agni, the god ofinsight, as kaví and as a godinvited to the ritual withmantras, firmly allies themantra to this insightful level ofkaví activity:

Vaisvanara * shining all thetime,Agni the kaví, we call withmantras;the god who by his greatnessembraces both broad [worlds],

the one above as well asbelow. (10.88.14)32

Nevertheless, as suggested hereand as the definitive kavisasta*makes dear, the specific relationbetween mántra and kaví isactive, belonging primarily tothe performative realm of theseer in ritual. Because ofkavisasta*, we now ask ofmantra not only what does itdoit has power and uses thatpower to protect and defendbut

how does one use it? How doesone make that power effective?The answer to this is dear. Tomake mantra work onepronounces it. In the properand appropriate ritual context,mantra goes into effect onlywhen it is spoken out loud in asdear and precise a manner aspossible. Three times out oftwenty-one, for instance, thepriest says mántram. vocema33(we would pronounce the

mantra); once mántrair agnim*kavím acha* vadamah* (wecall Agni the seer withmantras);34 and onceBrahmanaspati speaks(vadati)35 the mantra meant aspraise. Moreover, in addition tothe three times mantra is"pronounced by the seer"(kavisasta*), it is alsopronounced (asamsan*)36 bythoughtful men in search ofAgni. Sharma (1979), following

Panini*, goes so far as totheorize that the root man-a is asubstitute for mna* (to rote, toutter), the latter being acontracted form of the former,and that the primary sense ofman-a is not "to think" but ''tospeak, to utter" "originally usedin the exclusive sense of loudrecitation or repeated recital ofthe sacred text" (p. 138). Thisinterpretation would certainlyconfirm our understanding of

mantra in the Rgveda* assomething that must bepronounced to have power butdoes not necessarily concurwith other interpretations ofderivatives of man (Upadhyaya1961).

It would seem, then, thatkavisasta* is a definitiveattribute of mantra in two ways.First, it draws the "priestless"mantra into the realm of a

clearly defined religiousfunctionary, one who isoperative on both thecontemplative and the activelevels. And, although mantraseems to belong primarily to theritual activity of the kavií, it alsoparticipates in the kaví's insight,given that the other tworeferences of kavisasta * are toAgni, the god of insight.Second, and more important,

however, kavisasta*underscores the pronunciationof mentra as essential to itseffectiveness. In fact, theRgveda* even says as much:Without pronunciation, mantrais powerless. Despite thenonritual, even nonreligiouscontext of the following verse,for example, an admonition byPururavas* to the beautifulUrvasi* the vision of whatshould be done with mantra for

one to receive its benefits isclear:

If these mantras of ours remainunspokenthey will bring no joy, even onthe most distant day. (10.95.1cd)37

The necessity of itspronunciation and theconcomitant assurance of itspower fit firmly within a thirdand final aspect of mantra, itsagency. By composition mantra

is an agent noun, though, asWackernagel pointed out (1954,703, 708), it does notnecessarily follow the patternestablished for its class. Unlikekse-tra* (field), pa-tra* (cup),vás-tra (garment), khan-í-tra(shovel), and dams-tra* (tusk),which have the general sense ofa means or instrument forperforming the task designatedby the root, mán-tra belongs toa much smaller group of nouns,

which includes tán-tra (warp)and dáttra (gift), whoseinstrumental designation isunderstood only indirectly. Theprimary meaning of thesewords seems to have beenmuch like a past participle:what is stretched; what is given;what is thought or spoken. Ifthis is the case, it wouldaccount for the instances wheremantra refers most clearly toadvise or counsel. The

instrumental understanding ofmantra, however, even ifsecondary, is clearly thepredominant one in theRgveda*,38 arising most likelyby analogy to the larger, firstclass mentioned earlier. Seen intime, then, as a real agent noun,mantra becomes a classic termin later tradition to designate apeculiar kind of instrumentality.As Thieme says,

er is das . . . Instrument (-tra)

der durch das Element man-benannten Handlung, also dasInstrument des Denkens, desErkennens: ein "formulierterGedanke," den man sprachlichvortragen kann, der demDichter hilft in seinenReflexionen und Meditationenfortzufahren.

(it is the . . . instrument (-tra)of the activity designated by theroot man-, therefore theinstrument of thought, of mentalperception (erken-hen); a

"well-formulated idea"(formulierter Gedanke) thatmay be executed verbally tohelp a poet continue hisreflection and meditation.)(1957b, 60)

If Thieme is right and this is thepeculiar cast to the agency ofmantra that we must follow,then how do we relate mentraas "the vehicle for thinking, forreflecting" to its two contextualunderstandings in the Rgveda?

The key lies in rethinking therelationship between these twothemes underlying mantra.Speech has power and is

pronounced. Somewhere in thedevelopment of the concept ofmantra, the seers put these twonotions together, formulating atheory that would be seminalfor centuries to come. Speechhas power because it ispronounced. If speech'seffectiveness is due to its beingpronounced, then itspronunciation must be seen as aperformative act, as an act thatsets in motion a whole matrix

of power and thereby getsresults. The result most desiredby the religiously sensitive inVedic times is insight,contemplative insight, into themysteries of the human and thedivine. Then, I argue, mantra,as "the vehicle for reflection," isthe seers' formulation of atheory about speech itself, aword whose very structurecaptures the new understandingthat speech "can do" and that

what speech can do best is openthe channels of the heart to thegods, so that inspiration can beclaimed by the very user of theword. However, what the seersdemand for this mantra the veryvehicle for inspiration, is that itbe spoken properly and that itspotential for all manner ofpower be recognized.

Mantra, then, is formulated asan unspecialized term thatincorporates the Rgvedic *

seers' growing sense that theirwords in ritual actually dosomething. As "Zaubersprüche"(Thieme 1957b, 69), mantras,from their very conception inthe Rgveda*, are classicalexamples of what are nowcalled speech acts. In How toDo Things with Words, Austin(1965) outlines the two essentialelements of the performativeutterance. First, it does notdescribe or report anything at

all and, therefore, is not thoughtto be true or false; and second,that the uttering of the sentenceis, or is part of, theperformance of an action, anaction that, again, would notnormally be described just assaying something (p. 5). Ofthese two elements, the secondis dearly appropriate formantra. That to say a mantra isto do something more than justto say something is obvious

from the consistent associationof mantra with powerful effectsand, less directly, from theessential requirement that amantra be pronounced. Thefirst element, however, is moreproblematic. In the first place,Rgvedic seers are emphatic thatthe basis for the mantra's poweris its truth (rta*, satyá) and thatit be formulated by thoughtful,reflective men from theirhearts. Second, although

mantras from the later Indiantradition, more often than not,can be of a nonsensical nature(Tambiah 1968a, 178ff.), theRgvedic context for mantra,scanty though it be, impliesthat, at least in this period, amantra must have meaning(e.g., 1968a, 2.35.2: "May wepronounce that mantra wellwhich was well-fashioned forhim from the heart; he willunderstand it, to be sure."). In

fact, the original sense of theword, "a vehicle for reflection,"could be

taken as the very indication thatby using the tool of mantra onebegins to reflect uponsomething, that content andmeaning are integral to theopening of the channelsbetween men and the gods.

Austin, however, goes on todescribe any number ofconditions that qualify theperformative utterance and that

most appropriately describe theRgvedic * conception ofmántra: (1) that there be "anaccepted conventionalprocedure having a certainconventional effect, thatprocedure to include theuttering of certain words bycertain persons in certaincircumstances"; (2) that "theparticular persons andcircumstances in a given casemust be appropriate for the

invocation of the particularprocedure invoked"; and (3)that "the procedure must beexecuted by all participantsboth correctly and completely"(1965, 14-15). There is no needto describe the details of theclassical srauta* system here,even as it might have beenknown to the Rgveda*; it willbe sufficient to note that therules and conventions of thissystem, into which mantra fits

most clearly, amply support theconditions for correctprocedure formulated byAustin. The first conditiondescribes the need to have theutterance heard by someoneand understood by him andothers in the context (Austin1965, 22)that the mantra mustbe pronounced (vad, vac,sams*) and that in almost allcases it is to be heard by thegods. (And, I presume, that

following the later ritual, itmust also be heard by the otherpriests and the patron.) Thesecond condition prescribes acertain person be designated asthe invoker of the utterance(Austin 1965, 34-35) that themantra is peculiarly allied withthe kaví. And, the thirdcondition requires that the formof the utterance, particularly itsgrammar, meet set requirementsand be complete (Austin 1965,

67-93)that the mantra must be"ungarbled, well set, andelegant'' (7.32.13ab) as well as"perfect" (1.40.6b).

Following generalized rulessuch as those just listed, thepower of the word as aperformative utterance becomescrystallized in the notion ofmantra. No other term for ritualspeech fit the Rgveda* is seento express as clearly theagentive quality of speech as

much as mantra, where thepriest's growing sensitivity tothe pure power of pronouncedspeech, as an instrument for theinsight already deemed socentral, is finally put intoconcrete form. Although theRgveda* knows other agentnouns for ritual speeche.g.,stotrá (song of praise)(nítyastotra, priyástotra,marútstotra) (Wackernagel1954, 703)it is fit mantra where

the agent suffix comes to be sosignificant philosophically.Mantra is the tool, themechanism, for yoking thereflective powers of the seerinto the machinery of ritual(Tambiah 1968a, 175-76).Although, in later times, thefocus of mantra really becomesthat of a key to meditation, akey to the establishment andmaintenance of divineaccessibility, the earlier

formulation, at least as boundby the context of the Rgveda*,focuses primarily upon thequalities of its use by thereligious functionary: the powerreleased upon pronunciation.

The Power of Speech

The view of speech captured inthe word mantra differsconsiderably from the view ofspeech known to an earlierperiod. This suggestion is basedupon the rarity in the Rgvedic *mantra system of a number ofthings apparently central to theunderstanding of religiousconsciousness, especially to the

formation of religious language.For instance, we have in themantra system, especially in thedesignation mantra ka-visasta*,an indication that the word ispreeminent, not the speaker.We do not get, for instance, thesenseless*kaví mantrasasta*(the seer pronounced, by/with amantrá39), nor do we get themore plausible*kavímantrasas* (cf., ukthasas* (theseer pronouncing the mantra);

in both of which cases thespeaker could be seen aspreeminent over the word. Wedo, however, get the hapaxmantrakrt* in a Somahymn"Rsi* Kasyapa*,strengthening your songs (gír)through the praises (stóma) ofthe mantra-makers"(9.114.2ab)as well as the hapaxmantrasrutya* in an Indrahymn"We neglect nothing, Ogods, we conceal nothing, we

go forth mindful of yourcounsel" (10.134.7ab)butneither fits neatly into a systemsupportive of the centrality ofany single religious functionary.

Remembering the importanceof the development of thoughtin the Rgveda*(Chattopadhyaya 1935, 35), andever mindful of the need touncover the religiouspersuasions of the Rgvedic*world (Thieme 1957a, 53-54),

we must now turn back to atype of religiosity that, I argue,is earlier than that of mantraand yet necessary to it;necessary not only historically,as one thing naturally gives riseto another, but logically as well,for the mantra system, asemergent in the late Rgveda*,makes much more sense whenseen as dependent upon anolder, more personalized andtheistic type of religiosity. One

way of getting at thisdevelopmental process is to seenot only what has changed inthe view of speech but, perhapsmore significant here, whatmight have been left out asmantra emerged.

In his discussions of bráhman,Thieme makes a distinctionbetween the Formel and theFormulierung:

Die Formel ist ihrem Wesen

nach überkommen, ihreWirkung beruht darauf, dass siein bewährter Weise wiederholtwird .... Die Formulierungwirkt, wenn sie neu ist DieFormel ist anonym, dieFormulierung gehört demIndividuum Die Formel ist eineanerkannte Grösse, aber dieFormulierung kann misslingen,sie ist dem Tadel ausgesetzt.

(The formula (Formel) istraditional in character, itseffects depend on the fact that it

is repeated in a time-testedmanner.... The formulation(Formulierung) works when itis new The formula isanonymous, the formulationbelongs to the individual Theformula is a known

quantity, but the formulationmay miscarry, it is exposed tocriticism.) (1952, 102-103)

This classic contrast betweentradition and novelty, betweenanonymity and individuality,between recognized powers anduncertain potentials, neatly fitsThieme's vision of themovement from brahman(formulation) to mantra(formula) 40 (cf., Renou 1949b,

268). It also supports the viewthat the Rgveda* covers a verylarge period, moving fromsimple ritualistic concerns tohighly complex and developedliturgical procedures (Bergaigne1889, 6-17; Renou 1962). If weare to assume, then, that indeedthere is a development in theRgveda*, what wouldcharacterize this "earlier phase"out of which mantra emerges?

We saw that in the mantric

conception of speech the locusof power is in its pronunciationby a religious functionary.Although the pronouncer isimportant here, he is seen lessas a person and more as avehicle, more as a tool throughwhom the mantra isempowered. Thisdepersonalization of the priest,however, has not always beenthe case, for substantialportions of the .Rgveda*

preserve a highly developedsense of priestly individuality.If we look closely, we discoverthat this strong sense of self isdependent upon the priest'srelation to his own speech,speech that is religious but notnecessarily ritualistic. I willargue, then, that the verycentrality of uttered speech seenin the mantric system must havearisen out of an earlier systemin which the person of the

priest was central but where hiscentrality depended preciselyupon the quality of his speech.

That speechthat possession ofbeautiful speechwas the key toa positive priestly self-imagethekey by which the priest couldmeasure his vocationaleffectivenessis brought outmost clearly in the story of thepriest Visvamitra's* return topower, hinted at in 3.53.15-16:

15. Sasarparí speech, given byJamadagni,roars loudly as she banishesdull-mindedness (ámati).The daughter of Surya* spreadsout to the godsher aging, immortal fame.41

16. Sasarpari* speech broughtthem [Visvamitra's* Kusikas*]quick fameamong the families of the fivepeoples.Now on my side,42 she gives

new lifewhom the Palastis andJamadagnis gave me.

According to later tradition,Visvamitra* was defeated by aVasistha* in a verbal contest ata sacrifice of King Sudas*. TheJamadagnis then gave himSasarpari* speech, "poetrypersonified" according toBhawe (1950, 19ff., 27), whichhe mastered over a period oftime. When he had learned this

new art of speaking,Visvamitra* once again took aplace of

honor among the Vedic peoples(Geldner 1951, 1.394n). Thegift of powerful and beautifulspeech, which brought new lifeto Visvamitra * and his familyand a reaffirmation of priestlyvocation among the peoplesbefore whom they hadpreviously lost face, stands indirect contrast to one of thethings most feared by Vedicman, ámati or "dull minded-

ness." In its fifteen or soappearances in the Rgveda*,ámati consistently refers to alack of thought or inspiration, apoverty of ideas or spirit,before which the seer tremblesand against which he pleads tothe gods for protection.Inability to provide acceptableritual speech appears to markthe seer as unfit and, in manycases, to deprive him of thebenefits of his priestly vocation.

Consistently, ámati is theabsence of matí, a thoughtformulated into a prayer thathas come particularly fromthose who are inspired(vípra)43 and who speak fromthe heart (hrd*).44 As "nothought" or "no appropriatethought," ámati is sometimesfound in conjunction withanother fear of Vedic man,durmatí or "evil thought, evilintention," a more complex

concept that can result as muchin physical danger as it can in alack of grace from the gods.Durmatí, though dearly locatedin the mind, is a less cerebralconcept than ámati, however,whose implications seem tobear purely upon soteriology;for durmatí stands in contrastnot to matí but to svastí, wellbeing in a broad sense, physicalas well as psychological. Wemust remember in this context,

then, 4.11.6, in which the seer(as he does in many places inthe Rgveda*) states hisexpectations of a relationshipwith god:

Dull mindedness (ámati) is farfrom us, far away anxiety(amhas*),far away all injurious thought(durmatí), whenever you watchover (us).By night, Agni son of strength,you are auspiciousto the one you accompany for

well being (svastí), god!

As we saw in 3.53.15-16, thepriest is possessor andmanipulator of ritual speech, afunction that defines hisvocational identity as well ashis psychological well beingand that would not be hisshould he be overcome byámati. It is not just thepossession of ritual speech,however, that is the magical keyto the priestly office. Rather, it

is the infusion of this speech byeloquence, and eloquence isdefined in a very peculiar way.As noted earlier, to be eloquentwith the gifts of a true kavímeans not simply to be able touse meter, syntax, ritualvocabulary, and mythicalanalogy correctly, but to usethem with authority, to makewhat is true on a cosmic scaletrue and effective on the humanscale. To be eloquent means

that one's words must havevalidity and, to have validity,they must have insight, forwithout insight into the truth,words will fall short of theirmark (Kuiper 1960, 254).

Almost from the beginning, thiseloquence was defined quitestrictly, by the communalstandard of peer opinion, as itjudged ritual effective-

ness, setting the measure ofbeautiful speech. Whatever thespecific context might havebeen, it is clear that the priestlypoets competed against eachother in word duels in whichcontestants had to rely upon the"mental quickness in the heart"(10.71.8) (Kuiper 1960, 280)hoping, of course, that ámatiwould be far, far away.Whether these contests were

secular "matches of artisticdexterity and literarycleverness" (Thieme 1957a, 53)as Geldner (1951), Renou(1955-69, 1.1-27), and to someextent Johnson (1980, 3-25)think or, more likely, "contestsof rivaling ritual performancesand of rivaling word poweraccompanying rivaling rites" asThieme (1957a, 53), Schmidt(1959, 446-47), and Kuiper(1960, 217-23) argue, they

appear to have been quite fierceand quite important to thecareer of the poet-priest, for notonly were material prizes atstake, but social standing andjobs as well. Note hymn 7.23:

1. The formulations (bráhman)rose up in competition.Ennoble Indra at the verbalcontest, Vasistha *!He, who by his might is spreadout over all [worlds],will listen favorably to the

words of someone as good asme.

2. The gods' own cry has beenraised, Indra,which the strong will commandat the contest;for amongst ordinary peoplethe length of one's own life isnot known.So help us over these anxieties(amhas*)!

3. In order to yoke up the

wagon, seeking cow-booty,with bays the formulations(bráhman) approached himwho relished them.Indra pushed both worlds apartwith his greatness,slaying the [otherwise]unconquerable powers ofresistance.

4. The waters swell up, whichhad been barren like cows.Your singers, Indra, havearrived at truth.

Come [swiftly] like Vayu* toour teams,for you portion out the prizesaccording to [the merits of] theprayers.

5. Let these intoxicantsintoxicate you, Indra,the high-spirited, who givesbounty to the singer,for you alone among the godshave compassion for themortals.Enjoy yourself, hero, at this

drinking fest of ours.

6. Thus the Vasisthas* praiseIndra with songs,the bull armed with the cudgel.

Praised let him give usblessings of sons and cows!Protect us always with yourblessings!

Following Kuiper's exegesis ofthis hymn (1960, 271), weknow that it describes a ritualcontest between priestly poets.This contest is likened to a realbattle, with the competitionbeing primarily for social

prominence based upon ritualeffectiveness. Line 1b indicatesthe presence of at least onerepresentative of the Vasistha *family, although it is not clearfrom the hymn what is therange of contestants, just theVasisthas* or a broad spectrumof priestly families. Lines 1bcdsuggest that Indra is to receiveall entries and be the finaljudge, although from 1d thereseems to be no question as to

the winner. By the beginning ofthe hymn, it is dear that theformulations have been sent tothe gods (1a, 2a), the prizes putup (2b), and the question raisedabout which the poets must bewise (2c, this will be discussedlater). By the end of the hymn,the Vasisthas* seem confidentof their eloquence and ofreceiving the prizes due them.

In 2d, we are told of the centralanxiety of the poets, the central

issue, therefore, to be answeredat these contests. According toKuiper's theory, this amhas*refers to the darkness and deathassociated with the ending ofthe old year and the beginningof the new, when the sunappears after a long period ofwinter darkness at the springequinox (Kuiper 1960, 218ff.;cf., Gonda 1941, 286).Following, as it does, however,a concern over the length of

one's own life (that is, howmany equinoxes one will see), Isuggest that this anxiety is dueless to a concern whether theyear will begin again than toone about extending individuallives as long as possible. Gondafinds in amhas* a family ofideas that stands in directopposition to the idea "of'broadness' expressed by uru-and its family" (1957, 40), areference to narrowness, to

limits, to boundaries, much likethe German enge. Aninvestigation of amhas*passages shows that it issomething afflicting manprimarily, and that mancontinually needs to beprotected and freed from it. Theparticular concerns of the Vedicsingers in amhas* seem to bethreefold: concern about socialstanding (free us from thereproach of our fellows);

concern about external dangers(free us from warfare and allowour animals to roam free); andconcern about long life (free usfrom the fear of living less thana hundred autumns). Given aslightly philosophicinterpretation, Gonda's view ofamhas* as narrowness wouldcertainly fit the subject matterof all three categories, but theamhas* passages seem toemphasize less the specifics of

such categories than theheightened sense of concernabout these specifics. I argue,then, that amhas* refers notonly to physical needs anddangers but, more importantly,to their psychologicalramifications; that is, to theanxieties about these needs anddangers. Vedic man wantedfreedom from anxiety abouttrouble as much as he did fromtrouble itself.

Nevertheless, as Kuiper hassuggested, it is clear that forsome sort of amhas*-relievinginsight contestants will winprizes (2b, 4d, 5b) of cows

(3a, 6c), sons (6c) and socialprominence, if the entriesplease Indra (1d, 4d, 5c). And,pleasing Indra involves offeringthe intoxicating Soma (5a),truthfully (and reverently)recounting Indra's great deeds,and, most important,reaffirming the divine andimmortal status of the gods andthereby indicating that one, incontrast, has come to terms

with one's own mortality (2c,5c). The insight by which prizesare won, then, must involve theacceptance of human mortality(that is, of living for a finitenumber of equinoxes); fordivine rewards could only begiven to men for whom thecosmos has a properhierarchical order. That theinsightful entries that wonprizes at these contests were intime, in fact, called mantras is

attested in the following verseto the Asvins *:

May we succeed with our songof praise (stóma), may we winthe prize.Come here by wagon to ourmantra you two,to the cooked sweetness, like atreasure among the cows.Bhutamsa* has just fulfilled thewish of the Asvins*.(10.106.11)

As suggested in 7.23.1c, 3cd,

and 4a, competition at ritualcontests involved a second kindof insight as well, insight intothe secret workings of thecosmos. In 6.9, a hymn to AgniVaisvanara* and "a rare,intensely personal account ofone poet's experience of thecontest and the exaltation heattains as a result of Agni'sinspiration" (Johnson 1980, 12),the poet reveals what he haslearned about Agni and the

continuity of the days:knowledge, he tells us, that heis afraid to make known forfear of upstaging his elders:45

1. The dark day and the brightday, the two realms of space,revolve by their own wisdom.Agni Vaisvanara*, just born,pushed back the darkness withhis light like a king.

2. I do not know how to stretchthe thread nor weave the cloth,

nor what they weave when theyenter the contest.Even so, whose son wouldspeak fine words here,thereby surpassing an inferiorfather?

3. He46 knows how to stretchthe thread and weave the cloth;he will speak fine wordscorrectly.Who understands this[wisdom] is the protector ofimmortality;

though he moves below, he stillsees higher than any other.

4. This is the first Hotar. Beholdhim!This is the immortal lightamong the mortals.

This is he who was born andfirmly fixed,the immortal, growing strong inbody.

5. He is the light firmly plantedfor all to seethe thought (mánas) fastest ofthose flying between [the twoworlds].All the gods, like minded andlike willed,

come together from all sides, asthey should, to the one sourceof inspiration.

6. My ears fly open, my eyeopens out,beyond to this light set in myheart.My mind (mánas) flies up,straining into the distance.What shall I say? What shall Ithink (manisye *)?

7. All the gods bowed to you in

fear, Agni,as you stood there in darkness.May Vaisvanara* bring us help!May the immortal bring ushelp!

This hymn, intended as one ofprofound insight, reveres AgniVaisvanara* as the light of theworld and the inner light ofinspiration and is, as Johnsonsays, "one of the earliestrecorded milestones of Indianmysticism" (1980, 19). In verse

1, the poet describes hisdiscovery of the cosmicmystery of light and darkness,that they are meant to alternate,and do so consistently and bytheir own conscious powerswhen the Vaisvnara* form ofAgni is ennobled to victory.Hidden behind the descriptionof the light of Agni as the ritualfire at dawn is the implicationthat Agni's light as insight (thatis, the inner light in the heart of

man) has victoriouslyovercome the darkness ofignorance.

The real theme of the hymn,however, appears in verse 2, asthe young poet awaiting histurn watches the others enterthe contest ground (2b). Herehe betrays his lack ofconfidence in his own abilitiesto succeed in the impendingcompetition. He is not sure,first, how to "stretch the

thread"; that is, how to describethe theoretical and hencetheological bases of thesacrifice whereby he wouldcapture the insight of sacrificialtheory in compact and eloquentspeech. Second, he is afraid ofcomposing words moreeloquent than another,particularly his father, who mayalso be his teacher, therebyupsetting the social (andphilosophical) structure of

traditional learning.47

With verse 3, we move into thelayered meaning of the ritualworld, as its subject, followingO'Flaherty (1981, 116), isunderstood as both Agni andthe inspired poet. Whenunderstood as Agni, lines abdescribe the fire god as theforemost priest of the ritual,whose knowledge ofappropriate procedure, andparticularly of eloquent and

insightful speech, is surpassedby none. The riddle of Agni isthen exposed in line

d, where he is understood asthe fire at dawn who brings thesun, the fire who can protectimmortality because he is anever-renewable resource andthe key to the perpetuallyrecurring sun. Whenunderstood as the inspired poet,lines ab describe a successfulcontestant in the competition,whose ritual knowledge andverbal skills are now capable of

sustaining the cosmos; theimmortality of line 3d is theimmortality of the worlds asensured by the ritual and, byimplication, the immortality ofman as well. The layers ofmeaning in line 3d, then, arethreefold: Agni as fire belowand sun above; the brightyoung poet who has surpassedhis aging elders in wisdom; andthe earthly mortal who haspenetrated the mysteries of his

immortal gods. In all threecases, though, an insightfulvision is central to this verse(Johnson 1980, 123).

Verse 4 makes clear that theinsight needed at this ritualcontest has to do with thepeculiarity of Agni as god. He isan immortal among the mortals,who, as line 5b tells us, is themessengerial embodiment ofthought flying quickly betweenthe two worlds, continually

bonding the contract betweenmen and gods, as well as thecentral source of insight thatupholds the divine world (5d).The experience climaxes inverse 6, where the young poetreceives insight from Agni anddescribes his deathlikeexperience of contemplation indetail. All his senses open outas he discovers the knowledgealready firmly fixed in his heart.As he increasingly interiorizes

his experience, his mindconversely seems to wanderinto the far unknown,"indicating his absorption in astate of speechless wonder''(Johnson 1980, 20-21) andgiving rise to the rhetoricalquestions of 6d (Thieme 1957a,53). In verse 7, finally, homageis paid to the distant but notcapricious god of fire, who hasas absolute a control over lightand warmth as he does over the

vision into the unknown.

The priestly competition, then,is the vehicle by which theseer's identity is established, anidentity based as much upon hisability to play with words as itis upon his powers of infusingthem with an inspiration that isritually effective. I have beensuggesting for some time,moreover, what the content ofthis insight might be and mustnow speak directly about the

referent of clear and effectiveritual speech. If the place whereinsight is measured is the ritualcontest, then the standard bywhich it is measured is theability to formulate ultimatequestions and, more important,to supply some kind ofresolution to them. What, then,are the subjects of these riddles,these perplexing questions, thatthe priest must solve by hiseloquent use of the word? To

be "true," it seems, eloquentspeech must correctly describeone of three things: the cosmicmysteries of the universe; themysteries of human life; and/orthe ritual symbolism by whichthese mysteries are expressed,understood, manipulated, andput to use beneficial for man.As we have seen, the cosmicmysteries about which the seermust have insight center aroundthe great deeds of the gods,

particularly (1) the central roleAgni plays in the life of thecreatures (2.35.2) and inregulating the procession ofdays

(6.9.1) by his swift travelsbetween each world (6.9.5),and (2) the importance of Indrain overcoming the powers ofresistance (vrtrani *) (7.23.3),which Kuiper believes isrepeated over again in theverbal context (1960, 251).

In the following hymn, 4.5,48again to Agni Vaisvanara*, thepoet reports on a contest in

which he has participatedsuccessfully and reveals thesecrets of the ritual in asymbolism that is understood toexplain the cosmic mysteries:

1. How can we of one mindreverencethe gracious Agni Vaisvanara*?With great high growthhe stays the great light like apost the dike.

2. Do not belittle the

autonomous godwho gave me this gift, for I aman ignorant mortalwhile he is the clever immortal,the wise, most virileVaisvanara*, the youthful Agni.

3. The mighty, thousand-semened bull with sharp hornshas a great song with doubletone.As one reveals the hidden trackof a cow,Agni has declared the inner

meaning (manisa*)49 to me.

4. The sharp-toothed butbenevolent Agnishall chew them thoroughlywith his hottest flame,who violate the institutes ofVaruna,the precious, firm [laws] ofattentive Mitra.

5. Willful like brotherlessmaidens,wicked like cuckolding wives,

evil, lawless (anrta*), andtruthless (asatyá),they were born for this deepplace.50

6. Who then am I, clarifyingAgni,that upon me who does notviolate [the institutes],you have boldly laid, like aheavy burden, this insight(mánman) so high and deep,this new question with sevenmeanings for the offering?

7. May our meditation,cleansing with its ritualinsight,51reach him who consistentlyremains the same:once the precious substance ofthe cow is in the leather skin ofritual food,the orb of the sun will breakover the tip of the earth.

8. What part of this speech ofmine should I declare?They speak covertly about thesecret riddle in the depths:when they have unlocked themystery of the dawns like adoor,[Agni] protects the dear tip ofthe earth, the place of the bird.

9. This is that great face of thegreat [gods]

which, leading, the cow ofdawn shall follow.I found it shining secretly in theplace of truth (rta *)going quickly, quickly.

10. Then, his mouth shining inthe presence of his parents,he thought (ámanuta) of thedear, hidden substance of theCOW.In the farthest place of themother, facing the cow,the tongue of the bull, of the

extended flame [went forth].

11. I speak humbly about thetruth when asked,trusting in you Jãtavedas, if thisis all right.You rule over all this richnesswhich is in heaven and onearth.

12. Of this, what richness isours, indeed what treasure?Tell us, Jãtavedas, as the onewho knows!

The farthest end of this, ourway is hidden.We went, as it were, findingfault with the wrong road.

13. What is the signpost? Whatis the direction? What is thegoal?We want to reach it like racehorses the victory prize.When will the dawns, thedivine wives of immortalityspread [their light] over us withthe color of the sun?

14. Those with their weak,trifling words,with their paltry retorts, wholeave one disappointed,what can they say here now,Agni?Unarmed, let them fall intooblivion.

15. The face of the god, of thisbull kindled into splendor,shone in the home.Clothed in white, beautiful in

form,rich in gifts, he shone like adwelling full of riches.

Dedicated to and revelatoryabout Agni Vaisvanara* in thepriestly contest, hymn 4.5begins with the poet's feeling ofunworthiness about reverencingAgni. How can man offeranything to Agni when the godgives us so much, especially thelight/insight that maintains thecosmos.

This self-depreciating themecontinues into verse 2 wherethe poet speaks again to the vastabyss between god and man,emphasizing both man'signorance in the face of Agni'swisdom (Renou 1955-69, 2.55-56) and man's mortality in theface of Agni's freedom from allboundaries, particularly that ofdeath. 52 The psychologicalimplications of this verse are

magnificent. On the one hand,the poet is genuinely fearful ofhis ignorance and his ritualineffectiveness as he enters thecontest, and on the other, heknows that pride and arrogancebefore the god who must bepleased would be anunforgivable error. Havingprepared Agni with adescription of man's owninadequacies, in verse 3, thepoet focuses on the insight of

the eloquent Agni, theprimordial priest, whose ritualsong (sáman) penetrates theinner meaning (manisa*) of thecosmic mysteries that surroundthe symbolism of the cow(O'Flaherty 1981, 113) and that,because of his praise of thegod, are now available to thecontestant. In verses 4 and 5 weget the hymn's first referencesto the poet's opponents in thecontest, who are characterized

above all else as violating theestablished laws of truth (rta*,satyá) for which they will bedestroyed, literally andfiguratively, by the insight ofAgni. Why, the poet than asksin verse 6, if I stand in suchgood stead in relation to others,must I have such a difficultpuzzle to untangle in thecontest, a new puzzle (cf.Renou (1955-69, 2.57) that hasa multitude of difficult

meanings for the ritual?

Beginning in verse 7 the contentof the secret is revealed. Inlines 7ab, the poet tells a truthabout Agni (that he isperpetual) and hopes that thistruth born of the poet'smeditation may be effective.Lines 7cd suggest thesymbolism used to describe thecosmic mysteries. Ritual foodsand implements, when properlyprepared and manipulated,

stimulate and perpetuate theproper functioning of thenatural world.53 In verse 8, thepoet asks out loud what part ofhis understanding he shouldmake known (Renou 1955-69,2.58), that same understandingcoveted secretly by moreadvanced poets about themagical mysteries of the dawn,a riddle whose key lies in thenature of Agni and the sun asdescribed in verse 9: that the

fire on the ritual ground isidentical with the sun and that,when kindled, Agni as sun willrise up out of his eternal hidingplace in the seat of truth to takehis place in the sky. Havingdiscovered the secret, andindeed having even experiencedthe sun in the secret hidingplace (9cd), the poet continueswith his revelation about Agniand the ritual process in verse10 (O'Flaherty 1981, 113;

Johnson 1980, 35-37), and in11-12ab goes directly to Agni,this time in his Jatavedas*(more intimate) form, tobroach, as is appropriate withthis god (Findly 1981), thesubject of material reward for"his devotion and proper actionin the contest" (Johnson 1980,24). The next four lines (12cd-13ab) reveal the poet's concernfor the rules governingperformance and the

determination of success at thecontest (Geldner 1951, 1.423-26; Renou 1955-69, 2.58-59).Hopeful as he is of winning, heis not sure what to do nor howto discriminate between rightand wrong

attempts. Lines 13cd are again arevelation of the secret of thecosmic mysteries of dawn butallude as well to the light ofwisdom hoped for by theaspiring poet as he moves on,in verse 14, to speak out againsthis ignorant, unsuccessfulopponents in the contest.Finally, in verse 15, the poetdescribes the Agni of hisvisionary experience and, in so

doing, presents a closing praiseof him as the god from whomthe desired prizes come.

The truth of the eloquentspeech in this hymn fits two ofthe three categories suggestedearlier: the cosmic mysteries ofthe universe and the ritualsymbolism and technique bywhich these mysteries are madeeffective. That the riddle of themystery of dawn is intricatelytied to the liturgical symbolism

that would make it true is basedupon the centrality of Agni. Bya visionary experience given byAgni, the poet comes to see notonly that the content of thesecret is the manifold identityof Agni, but also that Agnihimself is the keeper of thissecret, as well as the rewarderof the wise and chastiser of theignorant. Cosmic secrets, tied asthey are to the knowledge oftheir ritual expression and

manipulation, in this way, arethe source of great amhas *,but another secret is even morefearful and anxiety producing,that connected with the mysteryof human life. We have alreadyseen that there is great amhas*about the length of one's ownlife, the most important secretnot known to man (7.23.2cd),and that in this horrible abyssbetween finite, mortal man andthe infinite, immortal gods,

only Agni, who knows bothworlds, has insight into thisanxiety and, therefore,ultimately can becompassionate to man. Comingto terms with the finitedimension of man, I argue, isthe kernel of insight inRgvedic* thought, andsuccessful resolution of thisproblem (that is, a trueformulation about humanmysteries) is what, in fact,

empowers ritual speech, eventhat ritual speech called mantra,to defeat Vedic enemies:

And that much was not knownby these [men].The raging mantra pronouncedby the seers is true:The powerful four-cornered(vájra) slays the three-cornered [weapon of the gods'enemies].The god-revilers were the firstto age. (1.152.2)

From a Mitra and Varuna*hymn, this verse contrasts theposition of truth with that offalsehood and places the powerof mantra squarely on the sideof truth. Although the riddle ofline c is significant inunderstanding cosmic victories(Geldner 1951, 1.210; Johnson1980, 6, 83-87), it is not ascentral to my argument as isline d, with its pronouncementof punishment to the ignorant

and implicit reward to thewisethose who can formulateand speak a true mantra have intheir power the key to1ongevity and even, perhaps, toimmortality.

We have seen that the secretsembedded in ritual speech are aresponse to a profoundly feltamhas* about certainmysteries. The continu-

ing need to respond to thisamhas *, I now argue, is one ofthe keys (note 1.152.2 justquoted) to the emergent notionof mantra: The priest canrespond to amhas* only if hisweapon is extremely powerful.That mantra is specifically tiedto victory over anxiety is dearfrom the following linesaddressed to Agni:

You take pleasure in him whopresents the offering to ensurecertainty (avrka*),in the mantra of the singer[composed] with insight(máanas). (1.31.13cd)

The concept of amhas*, then,is what makes the developmentof mantra so important, for, inthe end, the reason speech mustbe performative is to carry manbeyond the boundaries ofdeath.

I now turn briefly to the finalelement in the classic religiousmatrix of the Rgveda*, thesource of that insight central toeloquent speech that is the face-to-face relationship with god.Embedded in the large corpusof primarily ritualistic hymns,there is still extant a number ofhymns, many from Book 7, thatpreserve a highly personal,intimate, and immediate focusupon man's relationship with

god (Dandekar 1969; 1970).These hymns make dear that, inorder to have insight, thepriestly poet must have a rightand true relationship with hisgod, which can then bemediated by the spokenword.54 Vasistha's* hymn 7.88to Varuna* is a good exampleof the intimate and ''inconfidence" communicationthat can exist between a poetand his god. As he is praying to

Varuna*, Vasistha* relates thesecret of heaven (light anddarkness) that has beendemonstrated to him and how,because of this, he has beenmade a rsi* (seer) and stotr*(singer). This relationship,which was once quite friendly,however, has now become athing of the past for, because ofsome sin for which Vasistha*can give no accounting, thejudgment of Varuna* has come

between them. Vasistha* asks,as the hymn doses, forVaruna* to take the judgmentalnoose from around his neckand restore the intimacy ofearlier times.

1. Vasistha*, present a pure,most agreeable prayer (matí)to the gracious Varuoa*,who will then turn hither thelofty bull [sun],bearing a thousand gifts andworthy of worship.

2. "And now having come intosight of him (Varuna*),I think (mansi*) the face ofVaruna* is Agni's.May the overseer lead me to thesun [closed up] in the cragand the darkness, to see thespectacle.

3. "Whenever we two, Varuna*and I, board the boatand steer out into the middle ofthe ocean,

whenever we skim acrosswaves of the waters,we will swing in the swing andsparkle."

4. Varuna * set Vasistha* in theboat.The inspired master made hima seer, a singer, through hisgreat powersfor all the auspicious times ofthe days,55

for as long as the heavens, foras long as the dawns shall last.

5. "What has become of thosefriendly relations of ours,when of old we could gettogether without hostility?I used to go to your house onhigh,to your thousand-doored home,autonomous Varuna*!

6. "As when a steadycompanion who has sinned

against youremains your friend because heis dear, Varuna*,so may we sinners not paypenalty to you, avenger!Inspired one, extend protectionto your singer!

7. "Abiding in these firmabodes,may Varuna* release the noosefrom us,winning support from the lapof Aditi.

Protect us always with yourblessing!"

Vasistha* has been made a seerthrough Varuna's* great powers(4b), based upon his promise asan insightful singer andcomposer of the excellentprayer (matí 1a). Having beenmade a seer entitles Vasistha*to the special company ofVaruna* (3) and to arelationship of divinefriendship (6, 7) experienced

only by the privileged few.According to Dandekar, in fact,"The personal relationshipwhich Vasistha* claimed withVaruna* unmistakably remindsone of the classical relationshipbetween a bhakta and the God"(1970:79). To remain in thisfriendship, in this bhakti-likerelationship, Vasistha* mustfollow rta* (7c) and refrainfrom sin (6), otherwise thenoose which prevents the

freedom for peace andprogress, and which makesdeath more imminent, will behis forever. At the core of thisrelationship, facilitated andrenewed at each religiousmoment by the matí 'prayer', isthe opportunity to contemplate(man) the face of god and win,thereby, insight into themysteries.

From Contest To Ritual

Out of this religious matrix,which focuses on the insightfuland eloquent speech arisingfrom a seer's intimate andpersonal relationship with god(i.e., from a face-to-facecontemplation of the divine),arises the view of speech asagentive, the notion of mantrathat is powerful preciselybecause it is kavisasta*. In theclassical Rgvedic* system, it isthe intimate relationship

between man and god that isthe source of power,

because this relationshipallowed man to tap the powerof rta * and satyá, newlyaccessible to man once therelationship with god wasestablished. In the subsequentsystem into which mantra fits,however, the source of poweris that it is pronounced, notnecessarily that it is born ofinsight or that it is particularlyeloquent (for these things,

though sometimes statedoutright, are more often thannot simply assumed), but that itis spoken out loud in aparticular way in a particularcontext. With mantra, speechhas become an event, both onthe particular ritual level aroundthe fire hearths and on thecosmic level whereby itanalogically sets into motion thepowerful mythic life of thegods. As the seer is transformed

from a poet who thinks uponthe divine to a priest whomakes effective the ritual,mantra becomes the new andconscious designation ofspeech as performative.

The new focus on the power ofspeech and the shift in thesource of this power from theintimate relationship with godto the pronunciation in ritual,which we find in the rise ofmantra, does not mean an

abrupt break in tradition,however. The word mantra, infact, is clearly intended to be acontinuation of the earlier"insight tradition." Note, forinstance, that many of thestandard words for insight andinsightful prayer come fromman (matí, mánas, manisa*,mánman) and that man is oftenused to describe thecontemplation of the face-to-face relationship with god. It is

no accident, then, that the wordfor agentive speech be basedupon this tradition of powerfulinsight. The Rgvedic* poet isexplicit, in fact, that mantra beinspired and that it havecommunicable meaning: "Maywe pronounce that mantra wellthat was well fashioned for himfrom the heart; he willunderstand it, to be sure"(2.35.2ab). Moreover, thepower of mantra is clearly to be

a response to the old anxietiesof Vedic man, for it is "toensure certainty" (1.31.13) andto "bring joy on the mostdistant day" (10.95.1d). Addedto this are the implications thatmantra is a familiar termamongst those participating inverbal contests (10.106.11ab)and that the context of mantrain the Rgveda* supports thevery basic concerns of thesecontests (e.g., 2.35.2; 7.7.6;

7.32.13).

Nevertheless, the focus onpower and pronunciation inmantra indicates a newemphasis on ritualeffectiveness, and I argue, that,while by design the mantrasystem rests upon and in factparticipates in this earlierstratum of insight andeloquence, it has already movedon to reflect the issues thatbecome central in the

Brahmanas*, the expanding ofthe techniques and analogicalreferents of the liturgicalcomplex and the verydivinization of ritual itself. Note10.50.6 to Indra:

You have made all these Soma-fests efficacious,which you, son of strength,have appropriated for yourself.According to your wish, toyour command, the beaker lastscontinually,as does the worship, the

mantra, the upliftedformulation, the speech(vácas).

The emergence of the notion ofmántra, then, stands at apivotal point in thedevelopment of Rgvedic *thought, incorporating keyelements of matrices before andafter. The following verse,1.74.1, neatly summarizes thisthreshold nature of mantra.Mantra is a speech act (1b),belonging with the increasingcentrality of ritual as a

conception and as an act (1a),which has its foundation,nevertheless, in the earlierinsight structures whereempowerment comes primarilyfrom meaningfulcommunication with the divine(1c):

Undertaking the ceremonywe would pronounce a mantrato Agniwho hears us in the distance.

Notes1. Note, for instance, thelistings in Vishva Bandhu's(1935-76) A Vedic Word-Concordance, where theRgveda* and theSatapathabrahmana* containthe majority of citations in analready short list of references(1.4, 2441; 2.2, 776; 3.2, 639-41).

2. The situation is even bleakerin the Atharvaveda. There, in

addition to references requotedfrom the Rgveda*, e.g., Sau*.6.64.2 (=RV.10.191.3), 18.1.60(=RV.10.14. 4), and 20.59.4 (=RV.7.32.13), only a few newreferences appear, i.e., 2.7.5and 5.20.11.

3. In fact, there is a fairly evenspread over most of the majorRgvedic* deities, with perhapsthe highest proportion found inAgni hymns.

4. According to Belvalkar's(1922) study, the 3.53.8 and6.50.14 mantra references maybe late as well (pp. 17, 21, 25).

5. Furthermore, one couldargue that the history of the useof the term mantra is themirror opposite of that ofbráhman, the really significantterm for ritual speech in theSamhitas* and Brahmanas*(Renou 1948-49; Gonda 1950;Thieme 1952). As the concept

of brahman decreases insignificance, that of mantraincreases. This suggestion isborne out by the evidence ofBandhu's (1935-76)concordance (1.4, 2291-95,2441; 2.2, 727-29, 776; 3.2,583ff., 639-41).

6. This suggestion is supportedby Dandekar's theory of thereplacement of an ancient cultof Varuna* by a new onededicated to Indra early in the

development of Rgvedic*thought (Dandekar 1969, 237-38; 1970, 77).

7. That mantra cannot beunderstood outside its use inthe ritual is dear fromRV.1.40.5; 1.74.1; 10.50.6; and10.88.14.

8. The other three referencesare RV.3.30.3b (of Indra whoperforms powerful deedsamong mortals), 4.24.8a (of a

stormy ritual contest overwhich Indra has presided andout of which Vamadeva*emerges the winner), and10.27.3c (of an undeterminedtype of conflict, thoughpresumably a regular battle).On the

last, Indra's complaint is thatit is only when the battle is"raging" does man call on him.

9. Sau *.2.7.5 and 5.20.11.

10. O'Flaherty takes aryás as anacc. pl. modifying bhuvana*,"noble creatures" (1981, 105).

11. Note that for the Vedicworld, the place of this truth isnot way off out there but

deeply hidden somewheredown here. We might speculatethat the initial Vedic focus onthe depths of the earth ratherthan the heights of the sky isresponsible for the eventualinternalization of thetranscendent yet deeply hiddentruth of the world initiallyassociated with Agni.

12. Note, for instance, theassociation of brahmán(formulator) with bráhman

(formulation); hotr* (invoker)with háva, hávana, havás,haviman*, havya*, hotra*,hóman (invocation); udgatr*.(Saman* singer) with gatu*,gatha*, gatha*, gayatra*,gáyas (song) (N.B. gír);prasastr* (director ?) withprasasti* (praise), prasasana*,prasis* (command), samsa*,sasa*, sasti* (praise);upavaktr*. (caller) withupavaka* (speech), vákman

(invocation), vácas (word); andprastotr* (Singer singer) withprástuti (praise), stúr, stotrá,stóma, stutí (song of praise).Names like agnídh (firekindler), adhvaryú (ritualcelebrant), nestr* (leader),puróhita (house priest), andpotr* (purifier), however, arenot directly related to ritualspeech.

13. Heesterman's (1964)discussion of the preclassical

and classical systems in theVedic tradition has a bearing onthis argument.

14. 1.152.2b; 6.50.14d; 10.14.4c.Cf., 1.67.4 mantra and sas*.

15. 3.21.4c; 3.29.7b. Cf., 5.1.8b,kaviprasasta* of Agni.

16. Kavf as vfpra: i.e., 9.84.5;4.26.1; 10.64.16; 10.114.5;3.34.7; 1.76.5; 10.112.9; 3.5.1.

17. As rtajna*: i.e., 10.64.16.

Cf., 2.24.7; 7.76.4; 10.177.2.

18. As dhí: i.e., 1.95.8.

19. As nánman: i.e., 1.151.7.

20. As kávya: i.e., 9.84.5;8.8.11.

21. As manisa*: i.e., 6.49.4;10.124.9; 10.177.2; 10.129.4;9.72.6.

22. As ukthá: i.e., 3.34.7.

23. As matí: i.e., 9.97.32;

9.64.10.

24. As mánas: i.e., 10.5.3.

25. As dhíra: i.e., 1.146.4;3.8.4.

26. As hrd *: i.e., 1.146.4;10.129.4.

27. As ninya*: i.e., 4.16.3.

28. As vratá: i.e., 10.114.2.

29. As ctándas: i.e., 10.114.5.Cf., 10.114.6; 10.124.9.

30. As tántu: i.e., 1.164.5. Cf.,10.5.3.

31. Soma: i.e., 9.74.9.

32. Johnson (1980) elaborateson the role of Agni in thishymn as "the inner light ofdivine inspiration dwelling inthe heart," the focal point ofmeditation for poets calledupon to participate in what hecalls "the sacrificialsymposium" (pp. 7-8). If thishymn, in fact, describes such averbal contest, verse 14 iscentral, as it names theinvitatory verses to the patron

deity, Agni Vaisvanara*,mantras.

33. 1.40.6ab; 1.74.1b; 2.35.2b.

34. 10.88.14b.

35. 1.40.5b.

36. 1.67.4.

37. d following O'Flaherty(1981, 253). Thieme: "Nichtwerden uns diese Gedanken ( =Die Gedanken, die wir imSinne haben), [wenn sie]

unausgesprochen [bleiben],später Freude schaffen" (1957b,70). Eggeling: "Untold, thesesecrets of ours will not bring usjoy in days to come" (Thesethoughts (= that we intend) willnot create joy for us later, [ifthey remain] unpronounced)(1982-1900, SB.11.5.1.6, 70-71).

38. I am indebted to Dr.Stephanie Jamison for callingmy attention to the verb

mantráy here, which wouldconfirm an instrumental orperformative interpretation ofmántra, with meanings such asI swear or I promise.

39. Again, I am grateful to Dr.Jamison for pointing out thatmantra would have to be in aninstrumental relation to the pastparticiple as second memberand that this hypotheticalphrase could not mean, forinstance, "the seer by whom the

mántra is pronounced." Seeher 1979 discussion of suchcompounds (198-99, n. 8).

40. Of course, this would notpreclude the overlapping ofperiods in which both theseterms enjoyed use. Note, forinstance, the conjunction ofmantra and bráhman in 10.50.4(and 6); Johnson, in fact, treatsthem as interchangeable terms(1980, 84).

41. Bloomfield discusses10.85.12 in which Surya*"mounted her mind-car," animage in which "You mountyour mind or wish-car andreach your destination, that is tosay, the object of your desire"(1919, 281). This use of themind may be prefigured here,and certainly is corroborated bythe term mantra. On

Surya * as goddess ofspeech, see Bhawe's discussionof the muse of poetry (1950,19-27).

42. Following Geldner 1951,1.39495.

43. Vípra: i.e., 3.30.20; 3.5.3;7.66.8; 7.78.2.

44. Hrd*: i.e., 3.39.1; 3.26.8.

45. The translation of this hymn

benefitted greatly from thework of O'Flaherty (1981, 115-17).

46. Agni or the inspired poet.

47. Johnson's interpretation ofthe sequence of events asrepresented in 2cd iscomplicated. Since the exactstructure of these "sacrificialsymposia" does not beardirectly upon the argumenthere, I will simply reproduce

his translation: "Indeed whose[companion] will be the 'son' torespond [correctly to thebráhmans] which are to beexplained here at the priorposition [placed intocompetition] by the 'father'[sitting] at the later position?"(1980, 18). I still am notconvinced by his discussion ofthis verse (149-150), as the fearof upstaging an elder fits sowell syntactically and

contextually and is a muchsimpler solution.

48. Again, I am indebted toO'Flaherty in a number ofplaces here (1981, 112-15).

49. Cf., Upadhyaya (1961) andJohnson (1980, 22) on thereferent of this word.

50. One of the few referencesto a hell found in the Rgveda*.Cf., 7.104.3, 11, 17 (Macdonell,1897, no. 75). Note, however,

Johnson's unusualunderstanding of lines cd as"Faced with the difficultbráhman, the poet at firstparanoically thinks that suchevil competitors... have posedthe enigma (5cd), the padám...gabhiram* (profoundphrase), so that it will beimpossible for him tounderstand" (1980, 22).

51. Cf., Johnson's discussion ofkrátu here and elsewhere

(1980, 145).

52. Note here Gonda's (1957)discussion of amhas* asessentially descriptive of a"narrowness" around man.

53. The discussions in bothJohnson (1980, 34-35) andO'Flaherty (1981, 113) areextensive and complicated,perhaps overly so if lines cd areunderstood within the contextof ritual magic at dawn.

Johnson's discussion,particularly, lacks a ritual focusthat is essential here; while he isright about the experience ofinsight, he is often silent aboutthe content of that insight,which, more often than not, is adescription and explanation ofritual analogues.

54. Compare the material inBrown (1968a, 206-207) whereDirghatamas* gets hisknowledge from a

transcendental vision with Vac*as its source.

55. A reference to the regularprogression of the ritualcalendar and to theestablishment of Vasistha* asritual practitioner parexcellence.

Chapter 2Vedic MantrasFrits Staal

This article consists of twoparts. The first part (pages 48-59) presents the evidence in theform of six mantras, providedin their original Vedic, with atranslation and a discussion of

the context in which they occurand are used. The second partformulates conclusions drawnfrom this evidence. There arethree sections: the first (pages59-66) deals with the distinctionbetween Vedic and Tantricmantras; the second (pages 66-70) compares mantras withspeech acts; and the third(pages 70-85) discusses therelations between mantras andlanguage.

The Evidence

Vedic Mantras are bits andpieces of the Vedas put to ritualuse.* In the earlier ritualliterature (e.g., in the Srauta *Sutras and in the Yajurvedaitself), mantras aredistinguished frombrahmanas*, or interpretivepassages that elucidate andinterpret the ritual use ofmantras. In the later ritualliterature (e.g., in the

Mimamsa*), mantras aredistinguished from vidhis, orinjunctions that prompt to ritualacts. Mantras occur in each ofthe four Vedas. They belong todifferent kinds of Vedicutterances, such as rc*, "verse(from the Rgveda*)," saman*"chant or melody (from theSamaveda*)," yajus, "formula(from the Yajurveda), generallymuttered," and nigada "formula(from the Yajurveda), generally

spoken loud."

*Although this article isaddressed primarily toIndologists and scholars ofreligion, the material also isof interest to linguists andphilosophers. In order not tomake the expositionunpalatable to its intendedaudience, I have not tried toadhere to standards of rigorand sophistication consideredcommendable in linguisticsand philosophy. All the same,

I have benefitted fromcomments by Yuki Kuroda andSteve Yablo.

Before discussing mantras ingeneral, it will be helpful toconsider some examples. I shalllist six of these, in the originalSanskrit, along with translationsor with what I shall refer to astranslatory meanings. I haveomitted accents even thoughthey are considered part of themantras. Afterward I shalldiscuss these mantras in detail,one by one, and derive some

general conclusions.

1. agnin *...agnnin* jyotismatah* kuruta /diksita* vacam* yaccha / patnivacam* yacchal(Kindle the fires! Consecratedone, control your speech! Wife,control your speech!)(Baudhayana* Srauta* Sutra*6.6)

2. mitro na ehi ...mitro na ehi surnitradha* /

indrasyorum a* visa*daksinam* / usann* usantam*syonah* syonam*/(Come to us as a friend,making good friends. Enter theright thigh of Indra; youwilling, it willing, you gracious,it gracious)(Taittiriya* Samhita* 1.2.7.1 f)

3. yo'sman dvesti*...yo'sman dvesti* yam* cavayam* dvisma* / idam asyagriva* api krntami*/

(He who hates us and whomwe hate, here I cut off hisneck!)(Taittiriya* Samhita* 1.3.1.1c)

4. devasya tva* savituh*...devasya tva* savituh* prasave'svinor* bahubhyam* pusno*hastabhyam* agnaye jyustam*nirvapamy* agnisomabhyam*/(On the impulse of the GodSavitr*, with the arms of theAsvins*, with the hands of

Pusan*, I offer you dear toAgni, to Agni and Soma.)(Taittiriya* Samhita* 1.1.4.2m)

5. indra jusasva*...indra jusasva* pra vaha*yahi* sura* haribhyam* /piba* sutasya mater ihamadhos* caknas* carur*madaya* // indra jataram*navyo na prnasva* madhordivo na / asya sutasyasvarnopa* tva* madah*

suvaco* aguh* // indrasturasan*. mitro vrtram* yojaghana* yatir* na / bibhedavalam* bhrgur* na sasahesatrun* made somasya //"Indra enjoydrive on,come, herowith your twosteeds,drink of Somalike a sage,

loving the sweet, pleased withinebriation!Indra, your bellylike one to bepraised,fill it with sweetlike heavens,with pressed Somalikeparadise,well-spoken inebriants havegone to you!Indra fast conqueringlike afriend,killing the demonlike ascetics,

he split the cavelike Bhrgu *,he conquers his enemiesinebriated with Soma!"(Atharvaveda 2.5.1-3)

6. ha* bu ha* bu ha* bu . . .ha* bu ha* bu ha* bu bha*bham* bham* bham* bham*bham* bham* bham* bham*bham* bham* bham* bha*bham* bham* bham* bham*bham*/ ha* bu ha* bu ha* bubrahma jajnanam*prathamam* purastat* / vi

simatas* suruco vena a* vat*/sa budhniya* upama* asyava* yi sthah*/ satas* ca yonimasatas* ca va* yi vah*. / ha*bu ha* bu ha* bu bha*bham*. bham*. bham* bham*.bham* bha* bham*. bham*bham*. bham*. bham* bha*bham*. bham*. bham*.bham*. Bham*/ ha* bu ha* buha* vu va/ brahma devanam*.bhati* parame vyomanbrahma devanam* bhati*

parame vyoman brahmadevanam* bhati* paramevyoman*//Here translation becomes moredifficult even than in theprevious case (5); but it may beattempted, in free fashion, asfollows:

(Hey hey hey! BANG bangbang bang bang bang BANGbang bang bang bang bangBANG bang bang bang bang !Hey hey hey! Born as brahman

first in the ea-east, Vena hasshone out of the glimmeringhorizon. He has revealed itshighest and lowestpositionemes, the womb ofbeing and of non-be-be-ying.Hey hey hey! BANG bang bangbang bang bang BANG bangbang bang bang bang BANGbang bang bang bang bang!Hey hey, hey man! Brahmanshines in the highest heaven ofthe gods brahman shines in the

highest heaven of the godsbrahman shines in the highestheaven of the gogodeses!)(Jaiminiya* Aranyageyagana*12.9)

All the expressions in these sixexamples are mantras or consistof mantras. They are not onlyvery different from each other,but, the further we proceed inthe sequence, the more difficultit becomes to provide a"translatory meaning." So let us

now review these six onceagain, one by one, place themin their ritual context, and seewhat general conclusions canbe drawn.

1. Aginin*...

This mantra is a command,technically called praisartha*.It belongs to the categorynigada. It is addressed by theAdhvaryu priest, shouting in

a loud voice, to the otherpriests, the Yajamana * (ritualpatron) and the Yajamana's*wife, after the Yajamana's*consecration has taken place.Following the mantra, fuel isadded to the fires, and theYajamana* and his wife''control their speech" (i.e., theypronounce only what isprescribed, but do not chatter;see Staal 1983a [AGNI] 1.333).

It stands to reason, therefore, toassume that this mantra is anordinary command, which hasbeen understood as such bythose to whom it wasaddressed. This implies, amongother things, that the Adhvaryupriest is the kind of person whohas the authority to issue suchcommands.

2. Mitro Na Ehi. . .

This mantra is a yajus, muttered

by the Yajamana* after theSoma plant has been purchasedby the Adhvaryu from amerchant. The Yajamana*mutters the first part of themantra (...sumitradha*) whenthe Adhvaryu approaches himwith the Soma bundle. He thenuncovers his fight thigh, placesthe bundle on it, and recites theremainder of the mantra(Caland & Henry 1906, 1.46;Kashikar & Dandekar 1958-73,

II, Sanskrit Section; 1.50). Hereno command is given orfollowed. The mantrasaccompany an act or acts andmay be interpreted ascomments on that act or onthose acts.

3. Yo'sman* Dvesti*. . .

This mantra, which is recitedfrequently, has a purely ritualuse: It is recited when the soilwithin a ritual enclosure is

prepared with the help of thesphya, a wooden knife. One ofthe brahmanas* associatedwith this rnantra provides itwith an interpretation that is arationalization, as is usual: Theenemy has to be excluded fromthe altar, for making the altar isa cruel act. "Let him think ofanyone he hates; he does trulyinflict trouble upon him!"(Taittiriya* Samhita* 2.6.4.4).Another brahmana* comments,

"There are two persons: onewhom he hates, and one whohates him. Surely, he should cutoff the necks of both,successively" (Taittiriya*Samhita* 6.1.8.4; cf. Staal1983a, 1.104).

When I call such interpretationsrationalizations, I do notintend to deny that there werereal enemies in Vedic times,whose necks could be, oractually were, cut off. There is

ample evidence for battles,sometimes intruding on ritual(see, e.g., Heesterman 1962).Such a background is reflectedin the "translatory meaning" ofthe mantra and points to one ofits possible origins. However,the meaning of a mantra is itsritual use. In ritual terms itmeans that the soil is scratchedwith the sphya. The authors ofthe brahmanas* are aware ofthese ritual uses, but they go

willfully beyond them,invoking anything that strikestheir fancy, contradictingthemselves, giving vent to theiradventitious and often infantilewishesnot unlike somecontemporary theorists ofritual.

4. Devasys Tva* Savituh*...

This mantra is recitedfrequently throughout all ritualperformances. It accompanies

and indicates an offering(nirvapa*). The first three

phrases (through hastabhyam*) occur at the beginning ofmany other mantras (seeBloomfield 1906, 492-94).Characteristically, thebrahmanas* are unhelpful;e.g., "He says 'On the impulseof the God Savitr'* when hetakes the sword, for impelling.He says 'with the arms of theAsvins*' because the Asvins*were the Adhvaryus of the

Gods. He says 'with the handsof Pusan*,' for restraint"(Taittiriya* Samhita* 2.6.4.1).All of this is vacuous becausethere need not be a sword, thereis always one Adhvaryualready, there is no need orclear use of impelling orrestraint. However, there alwaysis an offering.

That the ritual meaning is only"offering" is obvious from adiscussion in the

Mimamsasutra* (2.1.46). Thepurpose of this discussion is toestablish that mantras alwaysconsist of a single sentencebecause they express a singlemeaning (arthaikatvad* ekam*vakyam*). ThecommentatorSabara* elucidatedthis as follow, "The sutra* isexplained because mantrasfulfil a single purpose. Devasyatva*..., for example, indicates'offering.' The words that

comprise the mantra expressprecisely this, and thereforeconsist of a single sentence"(ekaprayojanatvad*upapannam / yatha* tavad*devasya tvetinirvapaprakasanam* / tasyavisistasya* Vacaka* etavan*padasamuhas* tadvakyam*).

5. Indra Jusasva* . . .

These mantras are curious, tosay the least, and they may well

have been composed under theinfluence of Soma. This is rare,if not exceptional. In theRgveda*, only one hymn(10.119) describes the effects ofdrinking Soma in detail. Evenwith respect to this hymn,Brough (1971, 341) judges,"Such a hymn cannot havebeen composed by a poet underthe influence of soma: theartifice of its structure excludesthis."

I don't know whether this istrue, but there are good reasonsto doubt it. I knew at least onemathematician who could domathematics only when he wasdrunk, not on account of theauspicious inebriation(sumada) of Soma, but onaccount of the evil intoxication(durmada) of alcohol. It,therefore, is not unreasonableto suppose that the mantrasindra jusasva* ... might have

been composed under theinfluence of Soma, even thoughthey consist of svaraj*metersrelatively uncommonmeters consisting of thirty-foursyllables each.

It is such meters that areimportant in the ritual use ofthese remarkable mantras. Theyconstitute the material fromwhich ritualists haveconstructed the beginning ofthe sastra* recitation

characteristic of an extendedSoma ritual, "the sixteenth"(sodasi*). In order to put thisin context, it should be recalledthat the paradigm or prototypeof the Soma rituals is theAgnistoma*, which consists oftwelve Soma sequences. ASoma sequence is a sequenceconsisting of a stotra chant, asastra* recitation, Somaoffering to the deities, andSoma drinking by the

Yajamana* and his chief priests(Staal 1983a, 1.49). In theAgnistoma*, there are five suchSoma sequences during themorning pressing, five duringthe midday pressing, and twoduring the third pressing. Fromthis pro-

totype an extension isconstructed by adding threeSoma sequences; the resultingSoma ritual is called ukthya.When another Soma sequenceis added to these fifteen, the"sixteenth" is arrived at. Onecharacteristic feature of thisSoma ritual is that its sastra *recitation should consist in itsentirety of anustubh* verses,viz., meters that consist of four

octosyllabic verses, or 4 × 8 =32 syllables.

Since the mantras indrajusasva*... consist of threeverses in the svaraj* meter, andthe first verse of a sastra*recitation is always recitedthrice, we have 5 × 34 = 170syllables at our disposal. If wedisregard the syntax andmeaning of these verses andconcentrate only on countingsyllables, we can make use of

160 = 5 × 32 syllables to obtainfive anustubh* verses, leavingan excess of ten syllables. Sucha procedure is in accordancewith the general character ofVedic mantras, in which formalfeatures such as meters are ofparamount importance. Interms of syntax or "translatorymeaning," however, theresulting anustubh* verses donot make sense, for they arearrived at by cutting off the last

two syllables of the first verseand adding them to thebeginning of the second (whichis a repetition of the first);cutting off the last four of thesecond and adding them to thebeginning of the third (anotherrepetition of the first); cuttingoff the last six of the third andadding them to the beginning ofthe fourth; cutting off the lasteight of the fourth and addingthem to the beginning of the

fifth; and cutting off the last tenof the fifth and putting them instorage, so to speak. The entireprocedure may be pictured asfollows:

To provide a translatorymeaning becomes veryhazardous, but an idea may be

gained from the following:

1. Indra enjoydrive on,come herowith your two steeds,drink of Somalike a sage,loving the sweet, pleased with!

2. Inebriation, Indra enjoy,drive on, come, hero, withyour two steeds, drink ofSoma,like a sage, loving the sweet!

3. Pleased withinebriationIndra,enjoy, drive on, come, hero,with your two steeds, drink ofSoma like a sage, loving!

4. The sweet, pleased withinebriation, Indra,your belly, like one to bepraised, fill,it with sweetlike heavens with,pressed Soma, like paradise

well-spoken!

5. Inebriants have gone to you,Indra,fast conquering like a friendkilling,the demon like ascetics he split,the cave like Bhrgu * heconquers!"

The remainder"His enemiesinebriated with Soma!"is usedfor the beginning of the nextpart of the sodasi* sastra*,

which I shall not write out infull, because it results in thesame kind of meters, and thesame kind of absurdities interms of syntax and translatorymeaning.

Later in the sastra*, which isvery long, use is made of atechnique called viharanam*(intertwining or transposition).Its first occurrence is in theconstruction of two anustubh*verses (consisting of 2 × 32

syllables) from intertwining agayatri* verse (consisting of 3× 8 syllables) with a pankti*verse (consisting of 5 × 8syllables):

The gayatri* verse is Rgveda*1.16.1:

a* tva* vahantu harayovrsanam* somapitaye*/indra tva* suracaksasah*//(The tawny horses take you

bull to the Soma drinking,You, Indra, with your sunnyeyes!!)

The pankti* verse is Rgveda*1.84.10:

Svador* ittha* visuvato*madhvah* pibanti gauryah*/ya* indrena*sayavarir* vrsna* madantisobhase vasvir* anusvarajyam*//(The gauri* cows drink fromthe sweet liquid, basic to theritual,

enjoying themselves with theircompanion, Indra the bull, tolook beautiful; beneficient tohis supremacy.)

The intertwining of these two isas follows:

a * tva* vahantu harayassvador* ittha* visuvatah* /vrsanam* somapitaye*madhvah* pibantigauryo//indra tva*suracaksaso* ya* indrena*sayavarih* / vrsna* madantisobhase vasvir* anusvarajyo*//

In this construction, theportions from the underlyinggayatri* verse are in italics, and

the portions from theunderlying pankti* verse are inRoman. (The -o ending isanother feature of sastra*recitation, to which I shallreturn.)

The translatory meaning canonly be guessed at, but thefollowing may convey some ofits flavor:

The tawny horses take from thesweet, basic to the ritual. Youbull to the Soma drinking, the

gauri* cows drink from theliquid. You, Indra, with yoursunny eyesenjoying themselveswith their companion, Indra thebull, to look beautiful;beneficient to his supremacy.

An intoxicated Sanskrit scholarmight interpret this as a poeticrendering of a Soma orgy;however, it merely results fromthe metrical arithmetic of theviharanam* technique. Interms of syntax or translatory

meaning, none of these mantrasmake sense; their ritualmeaning, on the other hand, isstraightforward anduncontroversial: Theyconstitute a portion of thesixteenth sastra*.

In the sequel of the "sixteenthrecitation" are further cases ofviharanam* and also instanceswhere mantras, though recitedin regular sequence, arereanalyzed into anustubh*

meters by counting the syllablesof their original metersdifferently. The readerinterested in these exercises canfind them in Staal, 1983a,1.661-63, and can listen to themon the accompanying casette.The examples given should besufficient to illustrate the ritualuse and meaning of suchmantras.

6. Ha* Br Ha* Bu Ha* Bu. . .

These mantras are chanted bythe Udgata* priest of theSamaveda* after the Adhvaryuhas placed a small image of agolden man(hiranmayapurusa*) on thelotus leaf that was earlierdeposited and buried at thecenter of the Agni field; laterthe large bird-shaped altar ofthe Agnicayana will beconstructed there. These chants(see Staal 1983a, 1.414-17 and

the accompanying cassette),which continue through someof the following rites, consist offour parts, and the mantras weare considering constitute thelast chant of the third part. Inthis third part, there are manychants similar in structure. Theystart with ha* bu ha* bu ha*bu ..., which is followed by atriple repetition of six syllables,five of them identical, and thefirst a variation, e.g.,

phat* phat phat phat phatphatha* bu hau hau hau hau hauka* hva* hva* hva* hva* hva*.

This is followed, in each case,by a verse, generally from theRgveda *, set to music inaccordance with a melody(saman*), after which there isanother round of meaninglesssyllables and finally a coda(nidhana), which is alsomeaningless.

Such meaningless syllablesfrom the Samaveda* are called

stobha. If Vedic mantras arecalled bits and pieces, thestobhas are the bits. Stobhasare very similar to the bija*-mantras of later Tantrism,meaningless syllables thatsometimes are strung togetherin sequences calledmantramala* or malamantra*(mantra garland, cf. Padoux1978a, 81), but that also may bearranged two dimensionally inmandalas* ,cakras, or deities.

The accompanying illustrationdepicts bija*-mantras forHanuman*, the monkey god,also god of the martial arts. Hislegs, for example, are markedram* ram* ram* ram* ram*ram*.... Some of the Vedicstobhas are combined intolarger mantra sequences withspecific structures, notdissimilar to musical structures.These structures may berepresented in abstract or

algebraic form. The chant ha*bu ta* bu ha* bu ...,forexample, is of the form:

p3 (QR5)3p3X

p3 (QR5)3p2p*Y

where a superscript indicatesthe number of times that a formhas to be repeated; for example,P3 stands for PPP, (QR5)3stands forQRRRRRQRRRRRQRRRRR,

etc. To obtain the chant ha* buha* bu ha* bu... from thisformula, we substitute P forha* bu; Q for bha*; R forbham*; X for brahmajajnanam*; P* for ha* vu va*;Y for brahma devanam*.

An abstract representation ofthis type may seem arbitrary atfirst sight, but it is not. It is notarbitrary because, by variedsubstitutions, we are in aposition to construct other

chants: first, by varying the"language" mantras X and Y;then by replacing Q with phat*and R with phat; or Q with ha*bu and R with hau; or Q withka and R with hva*; etc. In allthese substitutions, P and P*remain the same. But there areother chants where part of thesame structure is retained, but Pand P* are replaced with,respectively, u hu va* ha* buand u hu va* ha* vu va*, or

ha* vu va* and ha* ha* vu vova* ha* yi. In other words, thisabstract representationrepresents the invariantstructure of a number of chantsthat can be derived by rules ofvarious types.

Mantras For Hanuman *

I have provided such abstractstructures elsewhere (see Staal1983b) and mention them in thepresent context only to illustratehow some ritual chants consistof elaborate structuresconstructed from singlestobhas. The ritual meaning ofsuch mantras does not lie intheir language or even in theirpoetic or metrical structure butin the sounds, with their themes

and variations, repetitions,inversions, interpolations, andthe particular distribution oftheir elements.

Such meaningless syllables orelements are not confined to theSamaveda *. In the sastra*recitations of the Rgveda*,there are insertions of -o or-om, as we have already seen,and of somsavo*, which meanssomething (let us both recite)but which is treated as a

similarly meaningless element,occurs in various forms (e.g.,sosomsavo*) and is respondedto by the Adhvaryu with suchformulas as othamo* daiva,athamo* daiva, othamo* daivamade, modamo* daivotho, andother "bizarres contortionsliturgiques," as Caland andHenry (1906, 1.232, n. 8) calledthem. In the Asvalayana*tradition of the Rgveda*, theHota* priest murmurs before

the beginning of his firstsastra*: su mat pad rag de(Caland & Henry, 1.231). Eachsastra* recitation, moreover,has its own peculiarities, whichhave nothing to do with syntaxor translatory meaning. Duringthe noctural rounds in the moreadvanced Soma rituals, forexample, the first quarter verseis repeated in the first round,the second in the second, andthe third in the third (see Staal

1983a, 1.663-80, II.750-52). Inthe Samaveda* chants, thechoreography of the mantrasbecomes richer and morevaried. The chants themselvesare preceded by o hm*, andcertain sequences by hm*. Thepatterns become so complexthat the priests keep track ofthem by constructing figures,called vistuti*, with the help ofsticks on a piece of cloth (forillustrations see Staal 1983a,

I.Figures 48-51). In manymelodies (called gayatra*), theudgith* or second portion ofthe chant, sung by the Udgata*,is o va* o va* o va* hm* bha*o va*.

In musical chants, theoccurrence of such sounds is ofcourse not surprising. Theirfunction is simply to fill out themelody when there is no text.This is found all over theworld. The only systematic

differences between suchmelodic insertions are thoseinduced by the phonologicalstructure of the language inwhich they are inserted. Forexample, heisa hopsasa wouldnot fit in a Vedic or Sanskritcontext, but fits quite well inGerman when sung byPapageno in Mozart'sZauberflöte:

Der Vogelfänger bin ich ja,stets lustig, heisa hopsasa!

Heisa hopsasa is reminiscent ofthe kind of sounds one woulduse, in German, whenaddressing a horse or a packanimal. It would be helpful toknow what sounds the VedicIndians used in suchcircumstances and in otherkinds of extraordinarycircumstances. Suchinformation would not assist usin explaining the meaning orritual use of mantras, but it

would throw light on theirorigins and on the associationsthey may have evoked inancient India.

Conclusion

The six types of mantra wehave discussed constitute afairly representative sample ofVedic mantras. Though thereare other kinds, these are thetypes met with most frequently.

The reader will have noticedthat the first examples are closerto ordinary language inordinary use, but each nextillustration in the sequence isless like ordinary language,more devoid of translatorymeaning, and morecharacteristically "mantra."

This material enables us toderive some generalconclusions, which I shallpresent under three headings:

Vedic and Tantric Mantras;Mantras and Speech Acts; andMantras and Language.

Conclusion 1: Vedic andTantric Mantras

It is not possible to institute aproper comparison betweenVedic and Tantric mantraswithout presenting anddiscussing a similar body ofTantric material, and this wouldbe beyond the scope of this

essay. However, the Vedicmaterial is sufficient to showthat certain alleged differencesbetween the two kinds ofmantras, in fact, do not exist.

Wheelock (Chapter Three ofthis volume) says that "theVedic mantra truthfullydescribes and thereby actualizesa bandhu between ritual objectand cosmic entity," and that theVedic mantra "stands as ameans to the ends of the

sacrifice. The Tantric mantra,on the other hand, as theessence of the ritual procedure,is an object of value in itself."

It is clear that these expressionsare not applicable to most ofthe mantras we haveconsidered. Wheelock's termsare obviously inspired by thebrahmana * literature and notproducts of his own fancy.However, that does not makethem any more relevant.

Brahmana* interpretations aremore fanciful than anythingcontemporary scholars have yetcome up with. Of course, theauthors of the Brahmanas*knew the ritual uses of themantras (unlike somecontemporary scholars), butthey tried to go beyond this andinterpret these uses. Theirattempts, if they are not ad hoc,in general are rationalizations.Most mantras, for example, do

not describe nor do they referto cosmic entities. Moreover,the further we proceed alongthe entries of our list, the moreobvious it becomes that thesemantras are ends in themselves.The Udgata* continues to chantlong after the golden man hasbeen laid down. There are nospecific ritual acts with whichany of these mantras areindividually associated, and thatcould explain their

occurrencejust as there are noevents in the life of Christ thatexplain any bars or themes inthe C major aria "Geduld!" fortenor and cello from Bach's St.Matthew Passion. Vedic andTantric mantras, therefore, arenot different in terms of thecharacteristics alleged byWheelock.

According to Padoux (1963,296), Saivite* mantras aredifferent from

Vedic mantras because a Vedicmantra is essentially a verse ora group of verses: "un verset ouun groupe de versets."However, as we have seen, thisis applicable only to the textualsources of some Vedic mantras.It does not apply to prosemantras, to stobhas, or to anyof the numerous sounds andnoises that pervade the otherritual uses of the Vedas.

Moreover, even if a Vedicmantra seems to be a verse, inits ritual use it is not treated as averse at all. It is treated in thesame manner as other soundsequences that never wereverses, even to begin with. Thecounting of syllables thatfeatures in the ritual use of (6)indra jusasva *... is not similarto the counting of syllables thatwe find in true versification; itis similar to the counting of

syllables that is applied tostobhas and is typical of theirritual use. Even if stobhas areinterpreted, as e.g. inChandogya* Upanisad*1.13.1-4, the interpretationsshould not be takensymbolically (as was done bythe philosopher Sankara* in hiscommentary on this passage)but should be explained interms of syllable counting (seeFaddegon 1927; Gren-Eklund

1978-79). In other words, in allthese mantras, language,whether versified or not, is nottreated in the same manner asordinary language. Vedic andTantric mantras, therefore,cannot be different on accountof the fact that Vedic mantrasare "in verse."

A functional differencebetween Vedic and Tantricmantras may seem to be that thelatter are used not only in ritual,

but also in meditation. Now,meditation is not so differentfrom ritual as is often assumedand it, too, is alluded to in theVedas (see, e.g., Staal 1975b,79). Moreover, a characteristicof meditation, viz., that it issilent, also is applicable to ritualacts. Both Padoux andWheelock have emphasized thesilent use of mantras in Tantricritual. I shall return to this topicin my final conclusion, but it

should be emphasized here thatsilence plays a very importantrole in Vedic mantras, too.Many Vedic mantras areanirukta (not enunciated),upamsu* (inaudible), and arerecited tusnim* (in silence), ormanasa* (mentally). Thebrahman priest is in principlealways silent. Though all thedeities "love what is out ofsight" (paroksapriya* devah*),Prajapati is the one who has a

special preference for silentmantras and silence (perhaps,because he was not an Aryandeity and most mantras areAryan imports). True, theRgveda* says, "If these mantrasof ours remain unspoken/theywill bring no joy, even on themost distant day" (10.95.1;quoted by Findly, Chapter One,page 26). But the use ofmantras in Vedic ritual presentsa very different picture.

Mantras are often transformed,made unrecognizable, hidden,truncated, decapitated,quartered, and reduced untilliterally nothing is left. I shallnot belabor this point since ithas been illustrated earlier inthis article and dealt withcomprehensively in theliterature (see especially Renou1949a and Renou 1954d, withSilburn; compare also Howard1983).

In terms of the characterizationsmentioned, then, it is not easyto make a clear distinctionbetween Vedic and Tantricmantras. In terms of form, thesimilarities are striking. I amnot familiar withcomprehensive

lists of Tantric mantras, but in the Vedic domain,such lists exist. Leaving aside Bloomfield'smonumental Vedic Concordance,on stobhas only, for example, we have theStobhanusamhara * published by SatyavrataSamasramin* in the Bibliotheca Indica1874, 519-42) and made accessible by van der Hoogt([1929] 1930). I shall supply some of the listed in this work in order to give an idea of theirforms. The reader can compare them with Tantricmantras, such as those listed by Padoux (1963, 339-61) and Bharati (1965, 119):

61) and Bharati (1965, 119):

a* (e)re ha-u*as ha* hm*auhova* hahas ho-ibha* hai humdada ha-i* hup(e)br* ham hvau(e)ra* has ihi

The stobha dada inspired Faddegon to coin thefelicitous expression Ritualistic Dadaism1927; cf. Gren-Eklund 1978-79).

Most of these stobhas and most of the Tantric

Most of these stobhas and most of the Tantric mantras* are not words of Sanskrit but have beenconstructed in accordance with the phonologicalrules for Sanskrit. I have come across two apparentexceptions to this rule, one in theStobhanumsamhara* (just quoted in the list), andone discussed by Padoux. The first is believe that pna-occurs in Sanskrit in initial position,and neither does pnya-. In middle position both areavailable, e.g., svapna (sleep, dream) and vision in a dream); the latter occurs in theAtharvaveda, and is rare. Perhaps constructed by a Samavedin* who heard and mistakenly assumed that this form consisted ofthe familiar reflexive pronoun sva

the familiar reflexive pronoun svahypothetical -pnya.

The unphonological mantra studied by Padoux iscertainly not pronouncable: rkhksem*. analysis (Padoux 1963, 356-58) is both pronouncableand dear in Tantric terms, ra-kha-ksem*.therefore, believe that we are entitled to retain thegeneral conclusion that mantras are constructed inaccordance with the phonological rules of Sanskrit.

All natural languages share some phonologicalproperties (see, e.g., Chomsky and Halle 1978, partIV). Are there also universal mantras? It may seempremature to ask such a question since, outside theVedic realm, mantras have been studied so

Vedic realm, mantras have been studied sohaphazardly. Moreover, we should exclude historicalinfluences, borrowing and exports: For example,mantras have been exported from Sanskrit intoChinese, Korean, Japanese, or Tibetan. Some ofthese have been modified to make them fit morecomfortably within the phonological structure of therecipient languages. All of them, incidentally,illustrate T. R. V. Murti's view that "Buddhism isHinduism for export." However, Vedic and Sanskrithave no monopoly in the export of mantras. Thereare purely Chinese man-

tras in Taoism and, accordingto Parpola, the famous mantraOM * may have been importedinto Vedic and Sanskrit fromthe Dravidian (Parpola 1981).

At present, I have only onepossible candidate for auniversal mantra: hm* (with itsvariants him and hum). Thismantra is common in Vedic andTantric contexts. It is intoned at

the beginning of many chants.But is not confined to India, oreven Asia. In the Zauberflote*,Papageno chants:

Hm hm hm hm - - - -- - - - - - - -!

Hm* is not confined to the oldworld, since, as Paul Attinelloinforms me, in 1930 theAmerican composer RuthCrawford-Seeger composedChant 1930, which begins

''Hum Hum Hum." Theuniversality of this mantra maybe due to its onomatopeoicrepresentation of a kind ofheavy breathing. Or, perhaps,the author of a passage of theTaittiriya* Samhita* explainedit correctly when referring tothe wind:

vayur* himkarta*(The maker of the sound HM*is Vayu*)(Taittiriya* Samhita* 3.3.2.1

a).

Other candidates for universalmantrahood are hi and ha.Compare for example theGerman jingle:

Unter einen Apfelbaumhi ha Apfelbaumhatt' ich einen schönen Traumhi ha schönen Traum.

(Under an appletreehi ha appletreeI had a wonderful dreamhi ha a wonderful dream)

Hi and hay are common inPeyote songs, which in generalconsist of meaninglesssyllables, especially among theArapaho (see Nettl 1953). Ha isalso found on Tierra de Fuego.When Waldon and Draytonlanded there in 1838 fromH.M.S. Beagle, "a group ofnatives took their arms andjumped with them in time to thefollowing song:

"Ha ma la ha ma la ha ma la ha

ma laO la la la la la la la la" (Bowra1966, 388).

Another possible candidate,OM * itself, is also akin tobreathing. It figurespredominantly in prananyama*recitations (see Staal 1983a,1.283, 380, Plate 62).

It is often assumed, albeittacitly, that Tantric mantras arevery different from the othermantras of medieval Hinduism.However, there are similarities.

The so-called Puranic*mantras, or mantras prescribedin the Puranas*, are a case inpoint. Whereas, they areliterally meaningful, unlike theTantric bija-mantras*, they aretreated as if they were devoidof meaning. This is shown bythe fact that the followingmantras (provided with theirtranslatory meaning):

namah* sivaya* (homage toSiva*)

om* namah* sivaya* (OM*!Homage to Siva*)om* namo narayanaya* (OM*!Homage to Narayana*)om* namo bhagavatevasudevaya* (OM*! Homage toLord Vasudeva*)sriramajayaramajayajayarama*([long] live Sri* Rama*, liveRama, Rama* live!)

are not distinguished from eachother (as Western scholars arelikely to assume) by thedifferent deities to which they

refer or by their "translatorymeanings," but by the fact thatthese mantras are, respectively,five-syllabic (pancaksara*),six-syllabic (sadaksara*),eight-syllabic, twelve-syllabic,thirteen-syllabic, etc. (Kane1930-62, V.1958, 1962, n. 219,1775). Just like Vedic andTantric mantras, these Puranic*mantras are treated not likeutterances of language but as iftheir main characteristic were

the number of their syllables.This is both characteristicallyIndian and characteristically"mantra."

To sum up, it is not possible tomake a systematic distinctionbetween Vedic, Tantric, andother Hindu mantras. I have nottaken the Buddhist evidenceinto account, but I am pleasedto record that Way-man, despitenumerous controversial and adhoc interpretations, has

similarly stressed the continuitybetween Vedic and Buddhistmantras and has concluded hissurvey of Budhist Tantricmantras by saying, "It is ...obvious from the present studythat the later religious practicesof India, such as the BuddhistTantra, have a profound debtto the Vedic religion" (Wayman1976, 497).

The Buddhist Yogacara*philosophers made theoretical

distinctions also reminiscent ofVedic notions. Theydistinguish, for example,arthadharani*, (meaning(ful)-memorizations), which consistof nouns, words, andphonemes not yet formulated oreven expressed mentally, frommantra-dharani*, which aresimilar but more effective: TheBodhisattvas use these toalleviate the afflictions ofbeings. This distinction implies

a difference between dharani*and samadhi* or"concentration": Whereas, thelatter is always associated withthinking (cittasamprayukta*),the former, according to thesetheorists, may be associatedwith think-

ing or dissociated from thinking(cittaviprayukta). In otherwords, some dharani * aremeaningful and others aremeaningless, but all are treatedsimilarly and belong to thesame category (see Lamotte1966-76, IV.1857-59). This isclearly similar to the Vedic andTantric use of mantras, whichalso is characterized by itsindependence from the

distinction between meaningfuland meaningless.

The use of the concept ofmeaninglessness to refer tocertain kinds of mantras is notnew. In the Nirukta (1.15), anearly work of the Vedic period,and again in theMimamasasutra* (1.2.31-39),reference is made to thedoctrine of Kautsa that"mantras are meaningless"(anarthaka* mantrah*; for a

fuller discussion see Staal 1967,24-26, 45-47). This view hasalways remained the view of aminority, for most Indiancommentators and philosophershave tried hard to providemantras with meaning, even ifit meant invoking theimprobable or the impossible. Ihave already referred to theBrahmanas* with their ad hocinterpretations, contradictions,and rationalizations. In the later

literatures of Hinduism andBuddhism, such rationalizationscontinue to develop, and theytend to become moresystematic. They are plentiful inSankara* (referred to inpassing, on page 60). InBuddhist philosophy, adistinction is made betweenexplicit meaning (nitartha*;Tibetan: nes* don) and implicitmeaning (neyartha*; Tibetan:dran* don; see, e.g., Murti

1955, 254; Ruegg 1969, 56;1973, 58). In BuddhistTantrism, this developed intofull-fledged systems ofhermeneutics that are similar tothe discussions in HinduTantrism on sandhabhasa*.

All such systems and conceptsderive from metaphysics andare not directly concerned withmantras. Steinkellner (1978b)studied one such system ofhermeneutics, due perhaps to

Candrakirti*, whichdistinguishes one literal andthree "Tantric" meanings. Thissystem formed the basis for theGuhyasamaja* school and wasadopted by all Indian andTibetan exegetes from theeighth century onward.Scholars should note that, as inthe case of the Brahmanas*,nothing is sacrosanct aboutsuch interpretations. They arethe predictable professional

views of philosophers,theologians, priests, andexegetes all over the world.They need not be takenseriously as possibleexplanations, because theythemselves stand in need of anexplanation. They do not throwany light on the nature ofmantras, for example.

There are more important kindsof evidence that have to betaken into account before we

can conceptualize or adequatelypicture the history of the Indianmantra from Veda to Tantra,Hindu as well as Buddhist.Foremost among these kinds ofevidence are the techniques ofchanting and recitation in thecontext of which many mantrasdeveloped. The relevance ofsuch evidence is clear in thecase of the Samavedic*stobhas, which can only beunderstood within the context

of the chants and melodies(saman*) of the Samaveda*(see, e.g., Staal 1961, Chapter8). For Buddhist chants, PaulDemiéville has collected therelevant facts in two articles,published with an interval ofhalf a century

between them (Demiéville 1930and 1980). The evidence fromchant and recitation (or"hymnology," in the words ofDemiéville) is far too rich andvaried to be taken into accountin the present context; but itdemonstrates, among otherthings, the importance ofmusical categories forexplaining some of thecharacteristics that distinguish

mantras from language. Thedose relationship betweenmantras and music partlyreflects the general relationshipbetween ritual and music, atopic that also is much too largeto consider here (cf. Staal1984b). All we can do in thepresent context is emphasizethat mantras cannot beunderstood unless their musicalcharacter is taken into account.This explains in turn why

mantras cannot be explainedwholly or, perhaps, even partlyin terms of language.

Before getting involved indiscussions and controversiesabout uses, functions, andmeaningsindeed before tryingto understand thema completeinventory of mantras (Vedic,Tantric, Buddhist, and Hinduwhatever labels outsiders haveaffixed) is an obviousdesideratum. On the Vedic side,

most of the work has beendone in Bloomfield's VedicConcordance and through suchworks as van der Hoogt 1929,already cited. On the Tantricside, let us express the hopethat the task will be undertakenby the workgroup "Equipe deRecherche 249," recentlyorganized by André Padouxunder the auspices of the CNRSat Paris. To put lists of mantrasin proper perspective, their

phonological analysis wouldhave to be undertaken, and theresult compared with statisticalletter and word approximationsof different orders for Sanskrit(such as have been providedfor English by Miller &Chomsky 1963, 428-429). Allthat is needed to carry out thelatter task is a good edition of aromanized Sanskrit text (Iwould recommend, on theVedic side, Weber's edition of

the Taittiriya * Samhita* inIndische Studien, Volumes 11and 12, 1871-1872) and acomputer. I am tempted topredict that the result of suchwork would demonstrate that itis impossible to distinguishamong Vedic, Buddhist, Hindu,and Tantric mantras, and thatstatistical approximations havenothing to do with it. But, whocan tell?

Whatever the difficulty of

drawing boundaries, it remainsa curious fact that monosyllabicmantras of the stobha type re-emerged in Tantrism afterapparently lying dormant formore than a millenium. It istheir popularity that stands inneed of an explanation not theiroccurrence somewhere on thesubcontinent, for traditions ofSamaveda* chanting have beenhanded down withoutinterruption from Vedic times

and continue to the present day.Knowledgeable Samavedins*have always been rare,secluded, orthodox, andreluctant to divulge their art; butwe need only assume that onebecame a Tantric or Buddhistand chanted stobhas for theedification or entertainment ofhis fellow sadhakas* ormonks. Though controversial,this would not be unheard of,for the Buddha himself had on

several occasions asked ayoung novice with a beautifulvoice to come to his cell atnight and chant. An opportunityfor transmission, in such placesas Banaras or Kanchipuram,therefore, al-

ways was available; that thesemantras found their way intomeditation is also notsurprising, especially inBuddhist monasteries; anexplanation is required only fortheir subsequent diffusion. Thiswill be provided after we havecome to understand mantrasbetter.

Conclusion 2: Mnatras and

Speech Acts

The thesis that mantras arespeech acts, an idea espousedelsewhere in this volume(Wheelock, Chapter Three;Alper, Chapter Ten), needsclarification before it can besubjected to closer scrutiny.Some such clarification hasbeen provided by Wheelock inan earlier article (Wheelock1982). Wheelock began hisdisucssion with Austin's

distinction between locutionary,illocutionary, andperlocutionary acts andconcentrated on Searle'staxonomy of illocutionary actsas "perhaps the most significantadvance over Austin's primitiveclassification" (Wheelock 1982,54). In order to clarify this, weshall modify slightly Austin'soriginal formulation into sayingthat speech acts have threekinds of force: the locutionary,

the illocutionary, and theperlocutionary. Theillocutionary force of a speechact is concerned with the effectthe speaker intends to producein the hearer. Searle'sclassifications of speech acts isbased on the assumption that allspeech acts are concerned withsuch effects, viz., withintention.

Adopting Searle's classification,Wheelock has pointed out that

there are several basicdifferences between "ritualspeech acts" and "ordinaryspeech acts." For example, "thevery basic requirement that anordinary speech event involvesa speaker and a hearer is onethat is often lacking in ritualspeech acts" (Wheelock 1982,58). And also, ''the mostessential distinguishing featureof ritual utterances is that theyare speech acts that convey little

or no information" (ibid.).Wheelock has also referred,with apparent approval, toTambiah's view that "in ritual,language appears to be used inways that violate thecommunication function" (p.57). Wheelock continues torefer to "ritual speech acts," andhe assumes that mantras alsoare speech acts.

I entirely agree with Wheelockthat mantras do not always

require a speaker and a hearerand do not necessarily conveyinformation; and with Tambiahthat they need not becommunicative. But Wheelockcould have gone a simple stepfurther and recognized thatmantras are not speech acts atall. This follows from Searle'sview, because according toSearle, all speech acts involveintention; since all mantras donot, mantras cannot be speech

acts. Searle's assumption that allspeech acts involve intention isbased, in turn, upon his viewthat all language iscommunicative, where"communication" includes whathas traditionally been regardedas "expression." I believe withChomsky (1975, 57) thatSearle's use of the term isunfortunate, because "thenotion 'communication' is nowdeprived of its essential and

interesting character." Searle'sviews, therefore, do notprovide sufficiently solidgrounds for concluding thatmantras are not speech acts.

Taking communication in thetraditional sense, as involving aspeaker and a hearer (the sensethat Tambiah undoubtedly andWheelock very probably had inmind), it should be obvious thatthe view that all language is forcommunication is not a truism.In fact, the rationalist traditionin Western philosophy hasnever espoused that view butinstead propounded that

language is a system for theexpression of thought (see, e.g.,Chomsky 1964, Chapter 1;1966). We do not have to takesides on this important issue inthe present context. All we wantto know is what happens to therelationship between mantrasand speech acts if we reject theassumption that communicationis the only function oflanguage. For example, if theexpression of thought is

another equally importantfunction of language, or evenits main function, it isincumbent upon us to find outwhether mantras and speechacts always, sometimes, or everexpress thought.

The answers to such questionsare not obvious. They can onlybe reached when the issues areformulated more carefully andprecisely. A framework fordoing this that is more

satisfactory than Searle's hasbeen provided by S.-Y.Kuroda. Kuroda (1975; 1979)distinguishes three functions oflanguage: the communicative,the objectifying, and theobjective. The communicativefunction presupposes theobjectifying, which involvesintention; and both presupposethe objective, which expressesmeaning, but involves neitherintention nor communication.

Kuroda has argued on purelygrammatical grounds that theobjective function is found innarrative style, and probably inlegal decrees, too. Hefurthermore has suggested that"the 'magical' use of language inprimitive rituals" may have tobe understood along similarlines (Kuroda 1979, 16).

If it is true that all language usepresupposes such an objectivefunction, the question naturally

arises whether mantras do.However, this is dearly not thecase, because mantras oftenhave no meaning. We,therefore, arrive once more,and without depending onSearle, at the conclusion thatmantras are not speech acts.

It is not only the case thatmantras are not speech acts; inthe Indian view, a mantra is noteven an act, viz., a ritual act(karman). That mantras are not

acts is obvious from their ritualuses, but it also is explicitlystated in the Srautasutras *and in the Mimamsa*. TheSrautasutras* formulate therequirement that there shouldbe a 1:1 correspondencebetween mantras and acts; e.g.,ekamantrani* karmani* (actsare accompanied by singlemantras) (Apastamba*Srautasutra* 24.1.38). Thereare exceptions, always

formulated explicitly, inaccordance with vacanad*ekam* karma bahumantram(when it is explicitly stated, oneact corresponds to severalmantras) (Apastarnba*Srautasutra* 24.1.44). It also islaid down that the beginning ofthe act should coincide with theend of the mantra,mantrantaih* karmadin*samnipatayet* (Apastamba*Srautasutra* 24.2.1). This

topic is taken up in theMimamsasutra*, adhyaya* 12,pada* 3, beginning with sutra*25. After discussing the generalcase, the sutrakara* addressesa number of special cases,

and continues in the next pada* with a consideration ofmantras that do not accompanyacts (akarmasamyuktah*:12.4.1). The discussion endsonly to make room for the nexttopic, a discussion of thecomplexities arising from theeleven anuses of the ekadasini*ritual (12.4.6).

It is likely that the idea that

mantras are succeeded by actsis related to a notion we findelsewhere, viz., that "magicalrites" are succeeded by"technical operations." Tambiahhas drawn attention toMalinowski's analysis of therelation between Trobriandmagic and practical activity,which shows that "the wholecycle of gardening or of canoebuilding must be seen as onelong series of activities which

form a regular pattern of M T, M T, M T, M T:where M stands for the magicalrite and T for the technicaloperation that succeeds it''(Tambiah 1968, 1985, followedby detailed examples).

As we have seen, even mantrasthat accompany acts onlyoccasionally refer to those acts.This is further corroborated bythe lack of any general term forsuch mantras. A technical term

exists, on the other hand, forrks* that refer to (or address,abhivad-) the accompanyingact: They are calledrupasamrddha* (perfect inform). This often means nomore than that the mantracontains a particular word. Forexample, Rgveda* 1.74.3contains the word ajani (isborn) and is recited when Soma"is born." Aitareyabrahmana*1.16 (3.5) refers to such cases

in the following terms, etad vaiyajnasya* samrddham* yadrupasamrddham* yat karmakriyamanam* rg* abhivadati*,(the perfection of ritual is whenit is perfect in form, viz., whenthe rk* refers to [addresses] theact that is being performed) (cf.Kane 1930-62, V, Pt. II.1097).

Though mantras are not speechacts, Austin's ideas may throwlight on mantras in anotherrespect. Austin originally was

interested in per-formatives,which he contrasted withconstative utterances. Later, hearrived at the conclusion that allspeech acts exhibit bothfeatures or forces.Performatives are speech actsthat perform acts in sayingsomething (e.g., promising orbaptizing). They cannot befalse, but they can go wrong, orbe "unhappy." Austinformulated six conditions for

the felicity of performatives.The first four are

A.1. There must exist anaccepted conventionalprocedure having a certainconventional effect, thatprocedure to include theuttering of certain words bycertain persons in certaincircumstances, and further,

A.2. the particular persons andcircumstances in a given case

must be appropriate for theinvocation of the particularprocedure invoked.

B. 1. The procedure must beexecuted by all participantsboth correctly and

B.2. completely (Austin 1962,14-15).

It is clear from what has beensaid earlier that mantras are notper-

formatives: They do notperform acts and need not sayanything. However, their use isgoverned by conditions that aresimilar in part to Austin's fourconditions. The chiefdifferences are that mantrasneed not have an effect, or avisible effect (the Mimamsa *thinkers devote muchdiscussion to such adrsta*(invisible) effects); what is

uttered need not be words; andthere need not be more thanone person uttering a mantra. Itis certainly a necessarycondition for the use ofmantras, on the other hand, thatonly the appropriate person canproperly use them (e.g., theAdhvaryu priest; see earlier,page 51). In general, onlybrahmans can utter or hearVedic mantras. Within a givenritual performance, only the

appropriate priest can use theprescribed mantras at theproper place and time. In orderto be able to discharge thispriestly function, a person hasto be eligible and electedbeforehand. The election ofpriests constitutes a specialceremony (rtvigvarana*) thattakes place at the beginning of aritual performance (Staal 1983a,I.313-16).

While Austin emphasized, in

his illustrations, theappropriateness of the speaker(e.g., a bridegroom saying"Yes, I do," or a person naminga ship), Indian theorists havebeen equally concerned aboutpersons hearing or receivingmantras as about those whorecite or give them. Therestrictions in Veda and Tantraare similar, but they are notalways the same. No mantrasmay be learned from books.

They can only be learned, at theappropriate time, by eligiblestudents from eligible teachers.Members of low castes, orpeople beyond the pale of caste(such as outcastes orforeigners) may be punishedfor hearing Vedic mantras eveninadvertently (e.g., by havingmolten lead poured into theirears). Among Vedic brahmans,additional restrictions obtain.The Samavedins* of Kerala, for

example, will not teach theirmantras to Rgvedins*, therebyfurther endangering thecontinued existence of theirown Veda. In Tantrism (as inMaharishi's TranscendentalMeditation), a person is givenhis own mantra and is notsupposed to divulge it at anytime.

All such conditions are similarto thoses formulated byAustinonly they go much

further. Mantras should bepronounced correctly andcompletely; but, in addition,they should be recited with thecorrect degree of loudness, atthe correct pitch, and at thecorrect pace (Apastamba*Srautasutra* 24.1.8-15translated in Staal 1982 23-24).Moreover, they, or theirspecifically prescribed portions(e.g., bhakti in the Samaveda*),should be recited in a single

breath (see Staal 1983a, I.311,602, 622). All suchrequirements that govern theuse of mantras resemble theconditions formulated byAustin, but they are moreextensive and more stringentthan anything that applies tonormal use of a naturallanguage, such as English orSanskrit.

Austin's ideas on the uses oflanguage have been extended

considerably and modified byphilosophers, linguists, andlogicians. A general termsometimes used to refer to thisarea of investigation ispragmatics. I shall adopt theuse of this term and extend it sothat it can be applied tomantras. We may nowformulate a general conclusion:Mantras are sub-

ject to much more stringent pragmatic constraintsthan are natural languages.

As long as we are geared to contemporary theories,fashionable ideas, or anachronisms, we shouldaddress the suggestion that mantras areSprachspiele (Chapter Ten of this volume). Ibelieve that it is feasible to defend this view onlybecause Wittgenstein's notion of exceedingly hazy and flexible. There are few thingsthat Sprachspiele are not and cannot do. However,what they arein short, what prevents anything elsefrom being a Sprachspielis almost totally unclear.

from being a Sprachspielis almost totally unclear.As for myself, I must confess that even in mypresent state of bewilderment about mantras, Iunderstand them better than Sprachspiele.therefore, appears to me that to maintain thatmantras are Sprachspiele is to commit the fallacyof trying to explain obscurum per obscurius.

Conclusion 3: Mantras and Language

One assumption underlies all discussions onmantras I am familiar withthe assumption thatmantras are a special kind of language. I suspectthat this assumption is false and shall adduce somereasons in support of this suspicion.

reasons in support of this suspicion.

First of all, the domain of mantras is in one sensewider than that of language. Human languages arecharacterized by properties that fall into fourgroups: the phonological, syntactic, semantic, andpragmatic. Mantras share with language onlyphonological and some pragmatic properties. Interms of syntactic or semantic properties, mostmantras are not well-formed, as we have seen. Itfollows from this that the domain of mantras iswider than that of language in the following sense;anything that has certain phonological andpragmatic properties can be a mantra, but itbecomes language only if it possesses in addition

becomes language only if it possesses in additioncertain syntactic and semantic properties.

There are things that possess syntactic andphonological properties that are different fromlanguage, though they may share semanticproperties with language; e.g., mathematicalexpressions. In mathematics, conditions of well-formedness for terms and formulas correspond tophonological and syntactic properties of naturallanguages, as in the following examples:

Well-formedmathematical:terms (a + b)

formulas(a + b) = cphonological bham

phonological bhamsyntactic so gacchati

he goes=

Other things share semantics, syntax, andpragmatics with natural language, but deviatemorphologically and phonologically. An exampleis the saying popular among Indian logicians:

asmakunam * naiyayikesam*arthani tatparyam*sabdani* kas* cinta(Us 1ogickers is intend onmeeningwhot kare are saund?)

This is not correct, as anystudent of either Sanskrit orEnglish will recognize. Thecorrect forms are

asmakam* naiyayikanam*arthe tatparyam*

sabde* ka* cinta*(We logicians are intent onmeaning,who cares for sound?)

What we have here differs frommantras in two respects, ofwhich the second is significantin the present context: (1)meaning prevails over form,whereas in mantras formprevails over meaning; (2) thissaying is obviously constructedfrom language, and is parasitic

on it, whereas mantras are notobviously constructed fromlanguage or parasitic on it.

Similarly, Lewis Carroll's poemin Through the Looking-Glass,

Twas brillig, and the slithytovesDid gyre and gimble in thewabe:All mimsy were the borogoves,And the mome raths outgrabe

is phonologically and

syntactically similar to English,and its connectives (and, the,in, etc.) are English, too; but its"nouns" are not nouns of theEnglish vocabulary. Again,such a poem is obviouslyconstructed in analogy tolanguage, and is parasitic onitunlike mantras.

It appears likely that mantrasare not merely independent oflanguage in a conceptual orlogical sense but that they

predate language in thedevelopment of man in achronological sense. I havesuggested elsewhere (Staal1979, 1983b) that language is arelatively late acquisition inman, perhaps 100,000 yearsold, whereas man himself is atleast ten times that old. Severalfacts suggest that ritual isamong the important humanactivities older than language.Animals have rituals similar to

human rituals but no languagesimilar to human language(animals have systems ofcommunication, but these differfrom language). There are alsosimilarities between the rules ofsyntax and rules in terms ofwhich certain rituals can bedescribed. Transformationalrules, for example, occur inboth domains (see Staal 1980;1984a). Since transformationalrules are not widespread in

nature or culture, or obvious inany simple sense, this similaritycalls for an explanation. Theserules of syntax do not smooththe functioning of language butmake language more com-

plex and unnatural (see, e.g., Chomsky 1968, 51-53). It stands to reason, therefore, to assume thatthey are a rudiment of something else, and I havesuggested that this something else may be the rulesof ritual.

Mantras are defined in terms of ritual and, so, onewould expect that they similarly predate language.This expectation is fulfilled. Mantras are in somerespects similar not only to language but also tocertain sounds animals make, bird songs, forexample. Bird songs exhibit structures such as

x y xx y x y

x x y x x y(Thorpe 1966, 353; see also Staal 1985a).

Some such structures are found in language, somein mantras, some in both, and some in neither. Thefirst of these structures, for example, is analogousto the principle of self-embedding in humanlanguage. The third exhibits twice the mantrasequence P2P* or ha * bu ha* bu hamet with earlier (page 50).

Taken by themselves, none of these facts establishconclusively that language developed from mantras

or even that mantras predate language, but takentogether they become intriguing, and when wecombine them with the facts that follow, theprobability that such a development took placeincreases. Another fact may have some bearing onthis matter and may be related to the similaritiesamong language, mantras, and bird songs: Birds,like humans, have neural laterization (see Not-tebohm 1970).The development of mantras from language is noteasily explained (a point to which I shall return).The development of language from mantras, on theother hand, can be explained by assuming that

constraints of a syntactic and semantic nature wereimposed on mantras in the course of evolution.Syntactic constraints were already imposed whenelaborate structures were constructed from simplestobhas, such as we found in the chant bu ha* bu . . . (6).The priority of phonological or syntactic oversemantic constraints has never been seriouslyconsidered because the opposite is always tacitlyassumed: Most people take it for granted thatlanguage originated with meaning. It is equallypossible that meaning was introduced or attachedlast, as in the following hypothetical scheme of

evolution.I. EarliestStage

Mantras of Type 1

These are sounds subject tophonological constraints, e.g., bijaas him or stobhas such as

II.IntermediateStage

Mantras of Type 2

These are sequences, two-dimensional arrangements, or elaborateconstructions of mantras of Type 1, sometimessubject to syntactic constraints, e.g.,ha * bu ha* bu habham bham . . .

bham bham . . .orhuva* yi vacam*yi/ . . .(Jaiminiya* AranyageyaganaStaal 1983a, 1.525

III. Final StageLanguageThese are mantras of Type 2 subjectto semantic, further syntactic anddifferent syntactic constraints, e.g.,vacam* yaccha (Control yourspeech!)

speech!)

I must leave it to specialists to providechronological estimates for the duration of the firsttwo stages in this scheme of evolution. The earlieststage represents features that are found amongvertebrates and are certainly prehuman. (The termphonological in this context refers to any rules thatput constraints on the combinations of animalsounds.) The intermediate stage may be anthropoidor characteristic of early man but is probably mucholder (as suggested by bird song). The final stagecorresponds roughly to the last 100,000 years of thedevelopment of homo sapiens.

development of homo sapiens.

In order to evaluate the scheme that I havepresented, we need access to many more facts thanseem to be available. Animal systems ofcommunication have been widely studied, but weneed more information on such topics as thephonology, syntax, and pragmatics of bird song. Ihave already referred to promising beginnings suchas Thorpe 1966; see also Staal 1985a. As I have noexpertise in this area, I shall confine myself to suchdata as have been presented in the present context.This leaves us with plenty of puzzling issues, whichstand in need of discussion and clarification.

The first of these issues is raised by an obvious

The first of these issues is raised by an obviousobjection that must have occurred to many readers.The mantras I have listed are dearly derived fromSanskrit and not vice versa. How then can the claimbe made that language derives from mantras? Inorder to understand that this claim makes sense, wemust recognize a crucial fact that is basic to ourentire discussion. The Sanskrit that occurs in thesemantras is utilized in an inexplicable andunintelligible fashion, and not in the manner inwhich a natural language such as Sanskrit is evernormally used. These mantras often say nothing,but even if they say something, they do not say it inthe manner in which natural languages say things.

the manner in which natural languages say things.Moreover, what is said is not related tononlinguistic reality in any

manner that resembles thenormal and usual relationshipsbetween language and theworldvaried and puzzling asthese are. Furthermore, as wehave observed on severaloccasions, these expressionsfrom Sanskrit are used in thesame manner in whichmeaningless mantras (such asstobhas and bija-mantras *) areused. From the point of view of

their ritual use, there is nodifference in treatment betweenmantras we would regard asmeaningful and mantras wewould regard as meaningless.In the context of a naturallanguage, however, such a stateof affairs is inexplicablenay,unthinkable: The distinctionbetween meaningful andmeaningless is fundamental tohuman language in all its uses.Though believers and scholars

may have gotten used tomantras, their use does not,therefore, make sense.Invoking a plethora of religiousor other supernatural terms andconcepts does not alleviate thisunintelligibility.

We have seen that mantrasshare with language certainphonological and pragmaticproperties. But mantras are notused like a special kind oflanguage, such as the language

of hunters, carpenters,musicians, or mathematicians.Mantras are used in ritual ormeditation to bring abouteffects that are stated to be"ineffable" and "beyondlanguage." This renders it allthe more difficult to conceiveof mantras as arising fromlanguage.

It may be possible to accountfor the religious uses ofmeaningless sounds such as

stobhas and bija-mantras* bysome ad hoc hypothesis (e.g.,"song, music, dance, andmantras may lead to religiousecstasy"). However, whenordinary expressions oflanguage, such as the mantrasexemplified by our illustrations1 through 5, are used in amanner that is incompatiblewith their normal linguisticfunction, it becomes hazardousto even conceive an ad hoc

hypothesis. The best we can dois try to explain such uses byassuming that they represent aremnant, vestige, or rudimentof something that existed beforelanguage but that wassufficiently similar to languagefor language to be capable ofexercising these inexplicableuses. I believe that thissomething is mantras. In otherwords, I am led to assume thatthere has been a development

of B (human language) from A(mantras), followed by theoccasional emergence offunctions in B that are moreeasily explained in terms of itspredecessor, A, than in terms ofits successor, B.

Such a situation is not rare inbiology. The earliest vertebrateswere fish, and the wings ofbirds, as well as the limbs ofreptiles and mammals,developed from fins. The

primary uses of these bodyparts are clear: Fins are forswimming, wings for flying,and legs for running. In fact,what we find is extraordinaryvariation. Crocodiles no longerhave fins but use their legs forswimming. The earliestcrocodiles, such asPelagosaurus, lived in the openseas. Since their legs and taildid not enable them to swimwell, they began to live in and

around rivers. So here we havea case of the development of B(crocodiles' legs) from A(fishes' fins), followed by theemergence of functions in B(swimming)

that are more easily explainedin terms of A (fins) than interms of their successors, B(legs).

Another interesting case ispenguins. These are birds butthey cannot fly. Their wingshave developed into flippersthat enable them to swimextremely well (20 miles perhour, for example). Walking is

difficult for penguins, but theycan glide on their bellies on iceover long distances with thehelp of their flippers. So herewe have a development fromfins into wings, but the wingsare mostly used in the mannerin which fins are used, and tosome extent in the manner ofski poles. This is like Peoplewho use language mostly in themanner of mantras (suchpeople exist, as we shall see).

Humans use their arms and legsas they use their language: theformer are generally used forwalking, running, grasping,catching, gesticulating, etc., andsometimes, archaically, forswimming; the latter isgenerally used for speaking orthinking and sometimes,archaically, in the manner inwhich mantras are used.Numerous paralleldevelopments in other animals,

and countless more distantlyrelated cases, therefore, supportthe hypothesis that humanlanguage has developed frommantras and still preservessome rudiments of this mantricbackground.

There are cases outside religionwhere people use languageentirely or almost entirely in themanner in which mantras areused. This resembles thepenguins' use of wings as if

they were fins, but in the caseof humans, it is eitherconsidered regressive andpathological or is actuallyconfined to babies. In 1887,Leopold von Schroederobserved striking similaritiesbetween mantras and theutterances of mental patients.Such similarities have beennoted and commented on byEggeling, Keith, and others, butmostly in rhetorical fashion.

Von Schroeder (1887, 112-14)was more straightforward andserious. He began hisdiscussion with an illustrationof mantras, quoting those thatare recited by the Adhvaryupriest when the ukha * pot,chief vessel of the Agnicayana,is manufactured. VonSchroeder translated fromMaitrayani* Samhita* 2.7.6,but I shall provide here theparallel passages from

Taittiriya* Samhita* 4.1.5 l-qand 6 a-d (see Staal 1983a,I.297-99 and cf. Ikari in Staal1983a, II. 168-77):

l. You are the head of Makha

m. You are the two feet of theritual.

n. May the Vasus prepare youwith the gayatri* meterin the fashion of theAngirases*!You are the earth.

May the Rudras prepare youwith the tristubh * meterin the fashion of theAngirases*!You are the sky.May the Adityas prepare youwith the jagati* meterin the fashion of theAngirases*!You are heaven.May the Visvedevas*, commonto all men

prepare you with the anustubh*meterin the fashion of theAngirases*!You are the directions.You are the unchangingdirection.Make unchanging in mechildren,abundance of wealth,abundance of cattle, heroism,and similar things for theyajamana*.

o. You are the waistband ofAditi.

p. May Aditi grasp your holewith the pankti* meterin the fashion of theAngirases*!

q. Having fashioned the greatukha*made of clay as a womb forAgni,Aditi gave it to her sons saying,"Fire it!"

a. May the Vayus* make yousmoke with the gayatri* meterin the fashion of theAngirases*!May the Rudras make yousmoke with the jagati* meterin the fashion of theAngirases*!May the Visvedevas*, commonto all men,make you smoke with theanustubh* meterin the fashion of the

Angirases*!May Indra make you smoke inthe fashion of the Angirases*!May Visnu* make you smokein the fashion of theAngirases*!May Varuna* make you smokein the fashion of theAngirases*!

b. May Aditi, the goddess,in union with the All-gods,dig you, trench, in the realm ofearthin the fashion of the Angirases*!

c. May the wives of the gods,the goddesses,united with the Visvedevas*,put you, ukha*, in the realm ofearth

in the fashion of theAngirases*!

d. May the Dhisanas*, thegoddesses,united with the Visvedevas*,fire you, ukha*, in the realm ofearthin the fashion of theAngirases*!May the wives, the goddesses,united with the Visvedevas*,fire you, ukha*, in the realm ofthe earth

in the fashion of theAngirases*!

Von Schroeder compared thesemantras with the followingpiece written by a patient andquoted by Th. Güntz (1861; Itranslate from the German):

First Prayer:Schiller save his soul andconsciousnessJesus save his soul andconsciousnessMy mother save her soul and

consciousnessvan der Velde save his souland consciousnessTromlitz save his soul andconsciousnessGerstäcker save his soul andconsciousnessVoss save his soul andconsciousnessSeume save his soul andconsciousnessKörner save his soul andconsciousnessArndt save his soul andconsciousness

and save the soul andconsciousness of all poets ofthe book of songs.

Second Prayer:for all the names that are inSchiller's work.

Third Prayer:for the soul of my family.

Fourth Prayer:to destroy my consciousnessand my ego.

Von Schroeder also quoted aprose passage from a patient atthe hospital Rothenberg nearRiga (I translate from theGerman):

With humility and affectionwalk the streets, the indicated,with full knowledge go thestreets, which favor going theroad with humility, and withdeep devotion go the streets,which favor to build the church

and keep the peace, whichindicated the way which isnecessary and desirable forthat, build the road with God'sdesire, buy the peace, and thenwith good spirit build thechurch, which is favored, andwith good intention gain thestage of learning, which couldbe desirable for that, withdevote endeavor give roses tothe institution, build God'schurch and show hissubmission with much humility,with much submission and

humility try to reach that goal,with much submission try togain that, and with humilitywalk the way which isrequired, make use of God'slove, with good intentions leada good life, with right decisiontake the road which is required,with good intention go the roadwhich is required, use God'slove, with progress go the way,of God's love, build the church,God's love, build the church,God's love, build the churchand with good intention, God's

love, build the church and withgood intent, God's love, buildthe church'' [the last twophrases are repeated abouteighty times, and it goes on likethat for several pages].

When the psychiatrist askedwhy he wrote the same thing allthe time, the patient answeredthat he did not know anythingelse.

Though these writings arepervaded by religious notions,

no one would regard them asreligiously inspired writing. It islikely that we have here a caseof regression to an earlier stageof development: Language isused here in the manner ofmantrasVedic mantras, to beprecise, for mainly semantics isaffected. Stobha-like mantrasare probably used by otherkinds of patients and in cases ofaphasia, to which I shall return.

Mantralike uses of language are

also found among babies, andhere the recapitulation ofphylogeny by ontogenyprovides even more strikingsupport for the thesis thatlanguage has developed frommantras. Nancy Budwig drewmy attention to Ruth Weir'sstudy on the babblings andpresleep monologues of a two-and-a-half-year-old child, alonein his crib, talking to himself.Here is an example of what he

uttered a few minutes beforethe onset of sleep:

like likeone liketwo likethree four likemonkey's likeup uplight light

turn the lightlightall gone all goneit's all gone it's all goneit's not all goneit's not allstop it stop itthere (squealing)yayaya wau wau gigouboubougigouboubounow it's all goneall gone (falsetto)go go go go

all gone all gone all gone allgonegood luckthat's onetwogo go go go (falsetto)close the doorgee gee gee gee gee gee (Weir1970, 128).

The following sequenceimmediately preceeded sleep,and contains more stobha-likeelements (I have replaced thephonetic transcriptions by

approximate spellings):

yiii (squealing)I I Ididgi gi gi githe baby the baby the baby(Baby is crying in the adjoiningroom)baby the baby baby (six times)iiibaby baby babybaybabybay

happy babythat's the babybaybabythat's the babybabyyaaaa (squealing)(SLEEP) (Weir 1970, 197).

Mental patients and childrenoften display featuresreminiscent of earlier stages ofevolution, and that may bereferred to as archaic. Religionis generally conservative andcharacterized by archaicfeatures. It is probable thatthere are other features ofreligion that can be interpretedas regressive. Glossolalia, orspeaking in tongues, is a related

form of regression (see May1956). Mantras are alwaysarchaic. They are oftenattributed to ancestors orprimeval sages (such as theVedic rsis *), or are regarded aseternal or as having originatedin a golden age (krtayuga* orsatyayuga). In Sri Lanka,where demons are similarlyprimeval, mantras are referredto as the "language of thedemons" (yaksa* basava*:

Tambiah 1968a, 1977).

The archaic nature of mantras isrelated to the fact that manymystical phenomena are archaic(cf. Staal 1975b). The mysticalstate is a state of awareness thatcan be reached or producedwith the aid of mantras, a stateof consciousness that is"beyond language" or"ineffable." Mantras give accessto this ineffable state. To saywith Renou, Padoux, and

Wheelock that mantras arebeyond the boundary oflanguage, at the highest level ofspeech "situated beyondlanguage and eventually right tothe zone of language," or to saythat mantras "point backwardsto the source of language,which is the source of allcreation itself'' (ibid.) is notmerely a matter ofphenomenological, religious, orspiritual metaphor, or using an

apt expression for the rightcongregation; such expressionsshould be taken literally asasserting that mantras are thepredecessor of language in theprocess of human evolution.

The mystical state is aprelinguistic state of mind thatcan be reached when languageis renounced, through silence,mantras, or rites. Absence oflanguage accounts for most orall of its allegedly blissful

nature. But it also explainscertain philosophical andtheological ideas and doctrines.An example is the belief thatmantras are not only eternal andimpervious to transformationbut that they fail to effect anytransformations. Accordingly,mantras do not transform aperson or lead to a newexistence; on the contrary, theygive access to a state orcondition that at all times was

already there. This simplymeans, on our interpretation,that the prelinguistic conditioncontinues to exist beneath astate of awareness now steepedin languagejust as our animalnature underlies whateverhuman characteristics aresuperimposed on it. Mancannot become an animal; healways already is one. This isformulated analogously interms of Indian philosophy: No

one attains release; everyone isalready released, only he or shedoes not know it. Such ideasare found in the AdvaitaVedanta* and in the BuddhistMadhyamika* schoolthephilosophical underpinningsfor all the schools of the Tantra.In Budhism, the locus classicusis Nagarjuna's*Mu1amadhyamakakarika*16.8:

baddho na mucyate tavad*

abaddho naiva mucyatesyatam* baddhe mucyamane*yugapadbandhamoksane*

(No one in bondage is releasedjust asno one who is free is released,if someone in bondage were tobe releasedbondage and release would besimultaneous.)

For Vedanta *, the locusclassicus is Gaudapada's*Agamasastra* 2.32:

na nirodho na cotpattir nabaddho na ca sadhakah*

na mumuksur* na vai mukta ityesa* paramarthata*(There is no destruction, noorigination,no one in bondage, no oneseeking perfection,no one desirous of release, noone really releasedthis is the highest truth.)*

I have come almost as far as theevidence allows us to go, butthere is one more question thatmay be answered, tentatively,within the framework that we

have adopted. Not only domantras lead to a prelinguisticstate, so do rites. Mantras andritual are both archaic andclosely related. The questionarises What is theirchronological relationship? Isthere any reason to believe thatone predates the other or areboth coterminous?

Though it is tempting toaddress this issue within abroader perspective (see Staal

1984b; 1985b; 1987; 1988a;1988b; and 1988c), I shall againconfine myself to the kind ofdata we have been discussing inthe present context. Aremarkable fact characterizesthe history and survival ofVedic ritual in India (cf. Staal1983a, II, Preface). In thecourse of this history, whichhas lasted for almost threethousand years, the originalSoma has been replaced by

substitutes, human and animalheads have been replaced byheads made of gold or day,animal sacrifices have beenabolished, numerous rites havebeen simplified andabbreviatedbut mantras havealways been scrupulouslypreserved. This fact can beaccounted for if we assume thatmantras, in general, are olderthan rites and, therefore, aremore tenaciously adhered to.

Such an assumption does notimply that any specific mantrais earlier than any specific rite.Many fire rites, for example, goback to the dawn of civilizationand are much older than theVedic mantras that accompanythese rites in the Vedic fireritual. The general persistenceof mantras beyond rites,however, is made intelligible bythe assumption that mantrascame before rites in the history

of evolution. What this meansin zoological or ethologicalterms is left to specialists tospeculate about.

Before I leave the topic of theorigin of language, I shouldmake it dear that I regard theevidence in support of thehypothesis that mantras areolder than language asextremely strong, if notunassailable. Of course, wecannot prove it: Mantras leave

no material evidence. Theevidence for the priority ofmonosyllabic mantras overpolysyllabic mantras, viz., forthe priority of Stage I to StageII, is less compelling. It isespecially in this area that weneed more empirical data, onthe songs of

*This theme has beendiscovered by MadisonAvenue: "A vacation to Alaskaisn't so much getting away

from something as it is gettingback to something."

birds, on growling, miauling,barking, and chirping not onlyof birds, butwho knows?ofgrasshoppers as well. To thinkthat mono-syllabics are earlierthan polysllabics may be aninstance of what might becalled the fallacy of atomisticreductionism. On the otherhand, there may be seriousgrounds for such a priority.Apart from the evidence from

babbling babies, there is onekind of aphasia, for example, inwhich the patient is in aposition to produce andrecognize phonemes, but notwords; in another kind, he canproduce and recognize words,but not sentences (see Jakobsonin Jakobson & Halle, 1960).Such facts suggest the priorityof Stage I to Stage II.

We are now in a position toreturn to the question why

monosyllabic mantras of Type Ire-emerged in Tantrism afterapparently lying dormant formore than a millenium. At thispoint of our investigation, acurious parallelism shouldspring to the eye of theunprejudiced observer. Just asmantras are often characterizedas a deviation from naturallanguage, Tantrism is oftencharacterized as a deviationfrom "normal Hinduism." It is a

fact that in Trantrism, the basicvalues of Hinduism arereversed. This explains whyHindus feel uneasy about it.Louis Dumont, who hasstressed these "renversementsde valeur" ([1966, 342] 1980),has also emphasized that theyare expecially characteristic ofthe left-hand forms, adding,undoubtedly correctly: "mais laforme gauche est pour nous laforme pure'' (but for us, the

left-hand forms are the pureforms) ([1966, 343]).

An interesting feature of theconcept of deviation is that it isa symmetrical relation: If Adeviates from B, B deviatesfrom A. If we abandon thenarrow perspective of the studyof Indian religion and adopt abroader, and also more human,perspective, it cannot fail tostrike us that drinking wine,eating meat or fish, and making

love are natural things to do. Toprohibit such acts is to deviatefrom the naturala feature of allorthodox religion, and oforthoprax* Hinduism as well.As we have just seen, it is likelythat language is a recentoffshoot and, to some extent, adeviation from the biologicaldomain of mantras and ritual.Therefore, it is not surprisingthat the natural acts espousedby Tantrism are not approached

through language (pacescholastic commentaries) butare couched in ritual forms andsurrounded by mantras. Thisconstitutes a return to the Vedainsofar as all those acts weretreated similarly in Vedic times.

For the sake of illustration, letus consider the act ofmaithuna, (coupling). Beforethe sadhaka * makes love tohis sakti* (sviya*, "his ownwife," parakiya*, "the wife of

another," or sadharani*, "onewho is common":Mahanirvanatantra* 145, n.7), he touches the principalparts of the two bodies, his andhers, during a ritual ceremonycalled nyasa*. This consists inthe "affixing" of mantras ortheir pronouncing over theseparts of the body. Religiousscholars are apt to hypothesizethat this is a sanctification orconsecration of the body.

Eliade understands nyasa* as a"ritual

* Orthoprax means adhering toright practice just as orthodoxmeans adhering to rightdoctrine (see Staal 1959).

projection of divinities intovarious parts of the body"(1969 [1954, 215; 1958, 210-211]), and Wheelock (thisvolume) interprets nyasa * as"homage." Since mantras alsoare regarded as deities or thevehicles of deifies, and sinceVedic times, deities have beenclosely associated with thehuman body, there are alwaystexts that can be quoted in

support of such views.However, insofar as they areoffered as interpretations, itshould be obvious that theseformulations explain nothing.Padoux is more careful andnearer the truth when heregards nyasa* merely as"imposition d'un mantra"(Index, s.v.). Light is thrown onthese curious practices whenwe interpret the affixing ofmantras as a simple return to

the biological domain of natureand the body.

The Tantric ceremony ofnyasa* resembles the Vedicdomestic (grhya*) riteprescribed in connection withthe first samskara*,garbhadhana* (impregnation;literally, the placing of theembryo) (see, e.g., Kane 1930-62, II, Pt. I.200-206; Gonda1980a, 367-68; and Index, s.v.).This ceremony, which uses

mantras from the Rgveda*(10.184) and the Atharvaveda(5.25), is related to earlier rites,referred to in Brhad-Aranyaka-Upanisad* 6.4, that intend tobring about the birth of sons ofvarying quality, or indeed of adaughter. In all cases, thenature of the child is assumedto depend primarily on the foodeaten by the parents prior to thesexual act. The best result (alearned and famous son who

recites all the Vedas) is believedto be obtained after the parentshave eaten a dish preparedfrom rice and meat, either vealor beef. Then he approachesher, saying,

I am ama, you are sa*,You are sa*, I am ama,I am saman*, you are rk*,I am heaven, you are earth.Come, let us get togetherDeposit seed togetherFor a male, a son, riches!

The Upanisad* continues:"Then he spreads her thighs.'Spread yourself, heaven andearth!' Inserting his member,placing his mouth upon hers,stroking her three times in thedirection in which the hairgrows, he says:

'Let Visnu* prepare the womb,Let Tvastr* shape the forms,Let Prajapati* discharge,Let Dhatr* place the seed inyou.

Place the seed, Sinivali*,Place the seed, goddess withflowing hair!Let the Asvin* twins place theseed in you,The two lotus-garlanded gods.

Golden are the kindling woodsWhich the Asvins * use to makefire.We invoke that seed for youTo bring forth in the tenthmonth.

As earth is pregnant with Agni,As heaven is expecting Indra,As wind is the seed of theskies,I place the seed in you.'" (cf.Staal 1983a, I.76-77).

Kane, who has translated partof this text (omitting thereference to meat and alsoomitting, "for reasons ofdecency," the lines that begin"Then he spread her thighs")remarks: "To modern minds itappears strange that intercourseshould have been surroundedby so much mysticism andreligion in the ancient sutra*"(Kana 1930-62, II, Pt. I.203).Gonda, who also has translated

part of the text (including thesex but excluding the meat)remarks: "This consecratoryfunction manifests itself in alarge number of cases in whichmodern man would not expectit. By pronouncing the propermantra the sexual act is forinstance raised to the rank of arite resuscitating and wieldingthat particular part of theuniversal and omnipresentforce which is active in the

creation of new human life"(Gonda [1963b, 259] 1975b,263).

Though such expressions mayappeal to certain audiences of"modem men," they cannotserve as an explanation for theuse of mantras. They merely area roundabout formulation ofthe things that have to beexplained, padded withproducts of free association.Considered within a more sober

perspective, the mantras used inthis context ("I am ama, youare sa* ..." and "Let Visnu*prepare the womb ...") aremantras of the same type asdevasya tva* savituh* (4).They accompany a single act,impregnation or "placing theseed." The rest is music. Thismusic is part of the structure ofmantras we are trying toaccount for.

Nyasa* is a Tantric not a Vedic

rite and, therefore, belongs to adifferent era. It is tempting tospeculate that, by the time wearrive at the Tantric period,mantras are called upon to takeaway the guilt that centuries ofmoral disapprobation haveattached to parts of the bodyand to bodily functions. NoHindu can engage in the "fiveMs" without experiencing afeeling of guilt. To actuallyenjoy such activities is possible

only if these feelings areovercome. Mantras can effectthis because they are natural,like music, dance, and song.They exert a hypnotic influencethat signals a breaking awayfrom the tyranny of languageand a return to the biologicaldomain of the body. This ismanifest in the extraordinaryclose relationship that exists inTantrism between the limbs(anga*) of mantras and those

of the divine body (Brunner1986).

In both Veda and Tantra, thereis a strong desire forenjoyment, in this world and inthe next. In the Veda, thisdesire is fulfilled partly throughbegetting sons. In the Tantra, itis fulfilled partly by identifying

Yoga with bhoga, "enjoyment."After a period during whichascetism and puritanism wereencouraged and prohibitionsand restrictions on enjoymentcommonly were expressed inJaina, Buddhist and Hindutreatises, Tantric mantras had aliberating effect and answered aneed of the times. The Tantricdevelopment turned into a ritualdevelopment in which mantras

played once again a paramountrole. The return from theelaborate mantric compositionsof the Vedas to themonosyllabic Tantric mantrasof Stage I may be explained bythe demands for simplicity,popularity, ease of access, andwide diffusion. In anothersense, it represents a return orregression to our prehumanancestors, aptly symbolized bythe nostalgic belief that from

the present Kaliyuga, that mostdebased of eras, there willemerge a new Satyayuga, aGolden Age in which we shallbe back in our originalcondition.

Appendix: Moon Chants, SpaceFillers, and Flow of Milk*

The chants that are the subjectof this paper belong to theAgnicayana as performed in theNambudiri tradition; they

therefore resort under the as yetunpublished corpus of theJaiminiya * Samaveda*. TheAgnicayana is connected withsaman* chants in two respects:indirectly through the Somaritual, with which it is alwaysassociated; and directly becausemany chants belong specificallyto its own tradition. I will notbe concerned with the Somaritual in the present context, butshould briefly refer to the

chants that characterize it: thestotra chants, which theNambudiris refer to as stuti.Each variety of Soma ritual isdefined by a particularsequence of stotra chants fromthe Samaveda, coupled withsastra* recitations from theRgveda*. The Adhvaryu recitesthe formulas that relate thesetwo to each other, and to hisown ritual activities. Forexample, before each stotra

chant begins, the Adhvaryuhands to the Udgata* twoblades of darbha grass, alsocalled stotra, with the words:rksamayor* upastaranam* asimithunasya prajatyai*, (youare the bed for the coupling ofrk* and saman*, for the sake ofprocreation). (Baudhayana*Srauta* Sutra* 7.8; cf. Staal1983a, I.625).

The chants that belong to theAgnicayana tradition itself may

be studied from variousperspectives. First of all,textually and with specialreference to the srauta* sutras*that place them in their ritualcontext. Asko Parpola hasrecently undertaken such astudy with respect to theJaiminiya* Srauta* Sutra* andits commentary by Bhavatrata*,a Nambudiri who lived in theeighth century A.D. or earlier(Parpola 1983b, 700). Secondly,

these chants may be studiedfrom a musical point of view.This has been done, withrespect to some Jaiminiya*chants of the Agnicayana, byWayne Howard, in acontribution to the samevolume in which Parpola'sstudy appeared (Howard 1982).In the following notes, I shallnot be concerned with eithertextual or musical analysis, butwith the structure and

distribution of some of thesechants. My material is

*This appendix is a slightlyrevised version of a paperoriginally published in Staal,Felicitation Volume ProfessorE. R. Sreekrishna (Madras:Kalakshetra PublicationsPress, 1983), 18-30.

based on recordings and notes obtained from the1975 performance of the Agnicayana in Kerala,described in detail in Staal 1982a (referred to asAGNI). This distribution and these structures do notalways correspond closely to the srauta * texts, as acomparison of the following notes with Parpola'sstudy would demonstrate.

When referring to the unpublished chants of theJaiminiya Samaveda*, I have adopted the system ofreference used in the manuscripts put at the disposalof Asko Parpola by Itti Ravi Nambudiri, the

foremost samaga* of Kerala. In thesemanuscriptswritten down in the Malayalam script,without sound notation, and largely from memory(that of Itti Ravi, his elders, and his pupils)theJaiminiya* Arcika* is divided into 112, theGramageyagana* into 59, and the Aranyegeyagana*into 25 ottus* or "songs". I shall chiefly refer to thechants of the Aranyegeyagana*, which theNambudiris call candrasamani*reference such as AG 25.7 would thus denote theseventh saman* of the twenty-fifthJaiminiya* Aranyegeyagana*.The first Agnicayana chants (Staal 1983a, I.410-11)are sung immediately after the Adhvaryu has placed

a lotus leaf at the centre of the Field of Agni(agniksetra*) over which the bird-shaped altar willsubsequently be constructed. The Udgata* enters,and takes up his position to the west of what will bethe tail of the bird, against the northern post of theeastern door of what will later become theHavirdhana* shed. From this position, he singsmost of the Jaiminiya* chants that characterize theNambudiri Agnicayana. The first chant is basedupon a cryptic mantra of the Taittiriyasamhita*(4.2.8.2d), which also occurs in theAtharvasamhita* (4.1.1), but not in the Rksamhita*.The Adhvaryu recites it at the same time, while he

places the golden breastplate (rukmaYajamana* wore at his consecration to the north ofthe lotus leaf:

brahma jajnanam* prathamam purastad*vi simatah* suruco vena avah*sa budhniya upama*asya visthah*gatas* ca yonim asatas* ca vivah*

(Born as brahman first in the east,Vena has shone out of the glimmering horizon.He has revealed its highest and lowest positions,the womb of being and non-being.)

This verse is turned into a chant consisting of thefive customary parts (1: prastava*; 2: udgitha*; 3:

pratihara*; 4: upadrava; and 5: prefixing and affixing stobha elements that will bereferred to with the help of capital letters, in thefollowing manner:A: huve ha* yi*B: hesaya*

C: au ho va *D: e rtam* amrtam.*.

I shall refer to the four lines of the verse of TS4.2.8.2d with the help of lower case letters: a, b, c,and d, respectively. Then the chant can be representedas follows:

prastava*: A A B a/udgitha*: b/pratihara*: c/upadrava: d A A B C/

upadrava: d A A B C/nidhana: D D D/

We need to adopt one more convention to interpretthis correctly: whenever there is a triple occurrence ofa stobha, viz., an expression of the form X X X, thefinal syllable of the third occurrence is lengthened.For example, in D D D, the third occurrence ends inamrtam*, and not in amrtam*.

Written out in full, the above expressions representthe following chant, which is Jaiminiya*Gramageyagana* 33.9.2:

prastava*:huve ha* yi* huve hahesaya/brahma*jajnanam

prastava*: hesaya/brahma*jajnanampurastat*/

udgitha*: vi simatas* suruco vena apratihara*:sa budhnya* upama*

upadrava:satas* ca yonim asatasha* yi* huve ha* yi* ho va*/

nidhana: e rtam* amrtam* e rtamrtam* amrtam*/

The only feature that is not represented in the formula(1) is the lengthening of certain vowels within thelines a, b, c, and d of the mantra. Of course, furtherabbreviations of this representation are possible. For

abbreviations of this representation are possible. Forexample, the sequence A A B may be replaced by W.In that case, the chant becomes

1. Wa/2. b/3. c / (2)4. d W C/5. D D D

The advantage of these representations is that theypicture the structure of the chant clearly, and enableus to compare the structures of different chants witheach other. Such representations also enable us toexpress in a simple form differences between

express in a simple form differences betweendifferent traditions and schools. For example, thecorresponding Kauthuma-Ranayaniya* chant differsfrom

the above Jaiminiya * variety only in that two ofthe stobha elements have different forms: A has tobe replaced by

A* huve ha* i*

and B has to be replaced by:

B*: hi sa* ya*.

If these substitutions are made in (1), the result isKauthuma-Rana yaniya* Gramageyagana* 321.2(in the edition of R. Narayanasvami* Diksita*).

From now on, I shall not write out the texts in full,but only represent them by symbolicrepresentations, such as (1) or (2).The second chant of the Udgata* that accompaniesthe Adhvaryu's rite with the golden breastplate is amusical composition on a single word: (truth). The stobhas may be referred to by

E: ho yi

F: ha* a* vu va*

G: e suvar jyotih*

The chant may then be written as

AG 25.24: satyorn / satya E satya

How much more abbreviation or simplificationshould be resorted to, in a case like this, dependsentirely on the occurrence or nonoccurrence ofother chants of a similar form: If there are noothers, there is no point in abbreviating anyfurther, but if there are, it depends on the degreeof similarity between them to what extent furtherabstraction may be helpful in expressing thestructure.

After these relatively modest beginnings, theUdgata* bursts into a much longer sequence of

songs. These accompany the deposition by theAdhvaryu of the golden man (hiranmayapurusaupon the lotus leaf, and continue through severalsubsequent rites. This sequence consists of fourparts (Staal 1983a, I.414-17). The first is called theGreat Chant (mahasaman*: AG 25.7), and thesecond consists of seven songs (AG 9.1-7), basedupon verses of the Purusa* hymn of the Rgveda*(10.90), with changes in the text and in the orderof these verses. I shall not analyze these two partshere, because it is not easy to abstract a generalstructure from them.The third part begins to exhibit marked

regularities, partly obscured by irregularities. It isquite possible that the latter have crept in over thecenturies, for these chants have been sung foralmost three millenia. This third part consists ofnine Moon Chants, AG 12.1-9. Four of these,

AG 12.3-6, consist entirely of stobhasrelatively short. Of the remaining five, three (AG12.7-9) exhibit the same structure, and two (AG12.1-2) a very similar pattern. I shall confine myselfhere to the structure that is the most obvious, andthat can be represented in a simple manner with thehelp of our notation if we adopt one furtherconvention, viz., express repetition of elements bysuperscripts. For example, instead of writing R R RR R for a fivefold repetition of the element R, I shallwrite R5.

The structure of each of AG 12.7-9 may now berepresented byP3(QR5)3p3XP3(QR5)p2p*Y

The use of parentheses is self-explanatory:Everything within parentheses should be repeated asmany times as is indicated by the superscriptfollowing the dosing parenthesis. Thus, (QRstands for QR5 QR5 QR5, orQRRRRRQRRRRRQRRRRR. X represents an

underlying mantra, different for each of the threesongs, and Y represents the nidhana,of the final portion of this mantra and/or a The stobhas, which exhibit the invariant structure,are P, Q, and R. Of these, P is the same in the threesongs:P: ha * bu.

P* is a modification of P, which is used in the finalround when P is repeated only once and its thirdoccurrence (like the amrtam/amrtam* considered before) is replaced by

P* ha* vu va*.

While the structure of the three chants is the same,the remaining stobhas, Q and R, are different, in thefollowing manner:AG 12.7 has Q:

R:AG 12.8 has Q:

R:AG 12.9 has Q:

R:

Written out as far as its stobhas are concerned, thelast chant, for example, becomes

ha* bu (3 ×) bha* bham* bhambham* (3 ×) ha* bu (3 ×)X

ha * bu (3 ×) bha* bham* bhambham* (3 ×) ha* bu (2 ×) ha* vu va

Y

In this chant, X happens to be the same mantra TS4.2.8.2d we have met with before. The structure ofAG 12.1-2 deviates to some extent from thispattern (4), but it also possesses the characteristicfeature (QR5)3, in the following manner:

AG 12.1 has Q:R:

AG 12.2 has Q:R:

The fourth and last part of this sequence consistsof a single chant, similar to the chant for the lotusleaf (3), but with purusa* as the main

AG25.25:

purusom* / purusa* E purusapurusa* F / G

After the agniksetra* has been prepared, the ritualcontinues with the piling up of the five layers ofthe altar. The bricks are consecrated by the

Adhvaryu on behalf of the Yajamana*, and theUdgata*contributes songs to some of these rites. Ishall here consider the sequence of chants that issung when the "Space Filler Bricks" areconsecrated. Most of the bricks are consecrated ina specific order, and are therefore numbered, atleast conceptually (cf. Staal 1982, Lecture III). Theonly exceptions are certain bricks, occurringespecially in the intermediate layers (i.e., thesecond, third, and fourth), that are consecratedwithout an individual mantra and in any order.These bricks are not consecrated without mantras,but the mantras are the same for each brick. There

are three: The first two are called sudadohasa*. These are used for the consecrationof every brick of the altar. The third is the specific"Space Filler" (lokamprna*) mantra lokam prna* chidram prna* 'tho sida* siva* tvam

indragni* tva* brhaspatir* asmin yonav* asisadan*

(Fill the space! Fill the hole!Then sit down in a friendly manner.Indra, Agni, and Brhaspati*have placed you in this womb.)

While the Adhvaryu recites these mantras over theSpace Filler Bricks, the Udgata* intones eightSpace Filler Chants: AG 24.5-6 and AG

25.32-37. The latter six are ofthe same form as (3) and (5),but other stobhas aresubstituted in the place of satyaor purusa *:

§3. AG 25.32: agna for Agni§4. AG 25.33: vaya* forVayu*, (wind)§5. AG 25.34: surya* SUN(§6. AG 25.35: candra (moon)§7. AG 25.36: naka* (vault)§8. AG 25.37: sukra* (glow or

Venus).

The nidhana portions are notalways the same. At this point ithas become obvious that itwould be helpful to express thestructure of these chants byrepresenting them by means ofa general functional expression,e.g., (X), defined as follows:

(X) = "X-om* / X ho yi X hoyi X ha* a* vu va*/"

In this expression, X-OM* is

obtained from X by replacingthe final -a of X by -OM*. Thedifferent nidhana portions maynow be substituted, and all thechants of this form that wehave so far considered may berepresented as follows:

AG 25.24: (satya) GAG 25.25: (purusa*) GAG 25.32: (agna) e jyotih*.AG 25.33: (vaya*) e raja*AG 25.34: (surya*) ebhraja*

AG 25.35: (candra) e a*bhraja*AG 25.36: (naka*) eprstham*AG 25.37: sukra*) e bhrala*bhraja*.

Other chants of this form aresung by the Udgata* on thethree occasions (on the first,third, and fifth layers of thealtar) when the "perforatedpebbles" (svayamatrnna*) aredeposited at the center by the

Adhvaryu in collaboration withthe "Ignorant Brahmin" (Staal1983a, 1.419, 461, 505; cf. Staal1978 and 1982, 42-53). Usingour notation, these three chantsmay be represented as follows:

on the first layer: AG 25.21(bhura*) G (for bhu*, earth)

on the second layer: AG 25.22(bhuva) G (for sky)

on the third layer: AG 25.23(suva) G (for heaven)

In each of these three cases, G

represents again e suvarjyotih*.

The last sequence of songs Ishall consider is chanted afterthe bird altar has beencompleted and fullyconsecrated. It is now vibratingwith power, ferocious (krura*)and dreadful (ghora), and hasto be pacified and

brought under control. To thisend the Adhvaryu, assisted bythe Pratiprasthata *, pours acontinuous libation of goat milkover the furthest western brickof the northern wing. Thisbrick is chosen because it iseccentric, i.e., far from thecenter of power, and alsobecause it can be easilyapproached from different sides(Staal 1983a, 1.509 sq.). While

performing this oblation, theAdhvaryu recites the famousSatarudriya* or Rudram (TS4.5), which derives itspopularity partly from the factthat it was later interpretedwithin the perspective ofSaiva* theism (Gonda 1980b).During this oblation andrecitation, the Udgata* chants asequence of fifty-sevensamans*, together called Flowof Milk (ksiradhara*). These

chants last very long andcontinue after the Rudraceremonies have beencompleted. Their completestructural analysis would takeup more space than is availablehere, but I wish to drawattention to two of their moststriking features.

I shall first take up the one thatappears last. The finalseventeen of these fifty-sevenFlow of Milk chants have the

structure of (3) and (5) we havejust considered, and incorporateagain the chants we havealready mentioned. The otherscan be represented in a straight-forward manner with the helpof our notation in terms of and G:

§41. AG 25.21 (see page 91)§42. AG 25.22 (see page 91)§43. AG 25.23 (see page 91)§44. AG 25.24 (see page 91)§45. AG 25.25 (see page 91)

§46. AG 25.26: (gaur) G§47. AG 25.27: (loka*) G§48. AG 25.28: (agnerhrdaya*) G§49. AG 25.29: (dyaur) G§50. AG 25.30: (antariksa*)G§51. AG 25.31: (prthivi*) G§52. AG 25.32 (see page 91)§53. AG 25.33 (see page 91)§54. AG 25.34 (see page 91)§55. AG 25.35 (see page 91)§56. AG 25.36 (see page 91)§57. AG 25.37 (see page 91)

In this list, I have onlyincorporated the representationof the ''new" samans*, viz.,samans* we have not yet metwith. The other representationshave already been provided.Thus far, the survey of thesestructures conveys an idea ofthe distribution of a specificchant structure or melodythroughout many sections ofthe Agnicayana ritual. Thisstructure is like a musical theme

that appears and reappears,with variations, at manyimportant junctures of theceremony.

The second structural feature Iwish to discuss occurs earlier inthe

Flow of Milk chants: in the tenchants § 18-§ 27 (AG 11.1-10).I shall write out the first ofthese in full, to dearly exhibit itsstructure:

§ 18. ha * bu (3 ×) ahamannam (3 ×) aham annado* (3×)aham* vidharayo* (2 ×)aham* vidharayah*/ ha* bu(3×)

yad varco hiranyasya* / yadva* varco gavam* uta/satyasya brahmano* varcah* /tenamasam* srjamasa*/ yiha* bu (3 ×) aham annam (3×) . . . vidharayah* (asat the beginning) / ha* bu ha*bu ha* vu va*/e aham annam aham annado*aham* vidharayah* (3 ×)aham* suvar jyotih*/

This chant incorporates amantra, yad varco..., from the

Jaiminiya* Arcika* (107.34),which also occurs in theKauthuma-Ranayaniya*tradition but is neither found inthe Rgveda* nor in theYajurveda. The structure of thechant exhibits a special featurethat may be represented in asimple fashion if we make useof indexed lower case letters toexpress elements, as follows:

a1: aham annama2: aham annadah*

a3: aham* vidharayah*.

The special feature of thesechants is that the mantra yadvarco. . ., which I shall refer toas Y, is preceded by thestructure:

a13 a23 a33

and followed by the structure:

(a1 a2 a3)3.

This feature occurs in all the tensamans*, but the number of

elements need not always bethree. Using the followingabbreviations:

P: ha* buP*: ha* vu va*T: aham* suvar jyotih*,

the general structure of the tensamans* is expressed by:

P3 al3 . . . ai3 p3 y p3 al3... ai3P P P* (e a1 . . . ai)3T.

We are now in a position tospecify the number of elements

(i), and the elementsthemselves, for each of the tensanans*, as follows:

§18. i = 3 a1: aham annama2: aham annadah a3: aham* vidharayah

§19. i = 3 al: aham* sahah*a2: aham* sasahih*a3: aham* sasahanah*

§20. i = 1 al: aham* varca.h§21. i = 1 al: aham* tejah*§22. i = 4 a1: manojait

a2: hrdayamajait*a3: indrojaita4 aham ajaisam*

a4 aham ajaisam*§23. i = 4 al: disanduhe*

a2: disauduhe*a3: disoduhe*a4: sarvaduhe*

§24. i = 1 a1: vayo vayo vayah*.

This could alternatively be expressed as

i = 3 a1: vayah*.a2: vayah*a3: vayah*

§25. Same as §24, but with rupam* insteadof vayah*§26. i = 4 al: udapaptam

§26. i = 4 al: udapaptama2: urddhonabham* syakrsi*a3: vyadyauksam*a4: atatanam

An irregularity here is that P is hi hi ya

§27. i = 2 al: prathea2: pratyastham*

This concludes our notes on these ritualchants. They call for two concluding remarks.The first relates to the psychology of thechanters. All these chants are transmitted

chanters. All these chants are transmittedorally and learned by heart, together withtheir order, distribution, interrelationships,and ritual applications and uses. Such anastonishing feat of memorization can only beaccounted for by assuming that such abstractstructures as we have postulated andexpressed by symbolic formulas are actuallyrepresented, in some form or other, in theminds or brains of the chanters. This reflectsthe obvious fact that it is possible toremember such vast amounts of material onlybecause of implicit, underlying regularities.

My second concluding remark relates to the

My second concluding remark relates to thesignificance of these chants. We havewitnessed, even in this relatively smallsample, many

strange forms, strange from alinguistic point of view, andalso strange for anyone who islooking for meaning, especially"religious meaning." It shouldbe obvious that language orreligion are not propercategories within which toevaluate the significance ofthese ritual chants. Rather, theirsignificance lies in the structureand composition of the

resulting edifice, and theabstract structural qualities thatwe have represented byformulas. If there are anywherestructures similar to these ritualfeatures, it is in the realm ofmusic. This is not so merelybecause the Samaveda * maybe described as "mantras set tomusic." What is moresignificant is that the structureof these chants, both internallyand in relation to each other,

corresponds to musicalstructure. Close parallels tothese structures are found, forexample, in the complexexpressions of polyphonicmusic in Europe during theeighteenth century. The ritualchants of the Agnicayanaresemble in this respect thearias of Bach's oratorios, andare similar in character: Theirlanguage is uninteresting, theirpoetry mediocre, and their

meaning trite; but the sounds,with their themes andvariations, inversions,interpolations, andcounterpoint, and the particulardistributions of their elements iswhat makes them remarkable.To those who have grown up insuch a tradition, and who havelearned to perceive andappreciate it in its traditionalperspective, it is the structure ofthese chants that reveals to a

large extent what is felt to betheir beauty.

Chapter 3The Mantra in Vedic andTantric Ritual*Wade T. Wheelock

In all religious traditions, thewords spoken in ritual areregarded as a special subclassof the entire corpus of possibleutterances, in terms of their

author, content, form, mode orcontext of delivery, and so on.The explicit, self-consciousdelineation of the extraordinarynature of the liturgicalutterance, along with anemphasis in both theory andpractice on its essential role inthe performance of ritual, hasnot been developed any moreelaborately than in Hinduism.The mantra, as a concept and asa recognized element of

liturgical performances, hasbeen one of the most importantcomponents of the Hindureligious tradition through theentire course of its long history,from the elaborate priestlysacrifices of the early Vedicsrauta * system to the morepersonal worship services(puja*) of the manifold formsof medieval Tantra.

Over this span of more than amillenium, there has been a

remarkable constancy in theimplications of the termmantra, as Gonda hasthoroughly demonstrated(1963b). The emphasis in bothVedic and Tantric usages is onthe mantra as an effective word,a word of action, not just ofthought. And the action withwhich the mantra ispreeminently connected is thatof ritual. (Later in this volume,Alper will re-emphasize this

point.) Thus, the orthodoxtradition commonly identifiesmantra with the samhita*portion of the Veda, thecollection of utterances (hymns,formulas, chants, spells)actually spoken during thesrauta* rites (Jha [1911] 1978,110). The Tantric practitioner,sadhaka*, utilizes mantras insadhana*, a program ofspiritual exercises one of whoseessential components is the

ritual worship of the deity,puja*.

*I would like to acknowledgea grant from James MadisonUniversity in partial supportof the research for this paper.

The striking parallels betweenthe Vedic and Tantric concernfor ritual language and theindubitable historical continuityrepresented by the term mantrainvite comparative study. Thispaper will examine the waysmantras are used in the Vedicsrauta * system and in Tantricpuja*, with the view that crossreferencing the analysis of onetradition to the other will

illuminate not just geneticrelationships but also theessential characteristics of theliturgical process specific toeach tradition.

Even if Vedic and Tantric ritualbelonged to completelyunrelated cultural families, ifthey were separated bycontinents as well as centuries,it would still be a legitimatetemptation to place them sideby side to see how each deals

with the universal problem ofusing language to transform aritual setting into an idealizedsituation of interaction with thegods. What kinds of thingsdoes one say during a ritual?How do they correlate with thethings being done? What are thedifferences in kinds of thingssaid between one ritual traditionand another? And, how dothese differences relate to theoverall goals of each ritual? Is

there an explicit theory of rituallanguage, or one implicit fromusage, that distinguishes onetradition from another? Muchof this paper's analysis will beconcerned with just this set ofquestions. Ritual languagethatcomponent of the ritual processwhose intelligibility makes itthe most accessible (though theTantric examples will severelytest this assumption)meritsstudy in its own right.

Sources

The full range of Vedic andTantric ritual simply cannot besurveyed adequately in thisstudy. The Vedic tradition willbe represented by the verycomplete description of ritualprocedures (including mantras)contained in the srauta*sutras*. And, here, I will limitmyself to a representativesampling, focusing on the New-and Full-Moon sacrifice

(darsa-purna-masa-isti*), amedium-sized, importantsacrifice that serves as theparadigm (prakrti*) for otherrites. The texts used are thesrauta* sutras* ofBaudhayana* (BaudhSu*),Apastamba* (ApSu*), andAsvalayana* (AsvSu*).1

To represent the Tantric ritualtradition, I have chosen theobligatory daily worship (nityapuja*) for a deity. Since

Tantric defines a much broaderrange of variants than doesVedic, the task of delimiting arepresentative selection of textswas more difficult,compounded by the limitedavailability of editions andtranslations. The most completepresentation of the ritual,providing the bulk of theTantric mantras for this study,was the Mahanirvana* Tantra(MNT), an eighteenth century

sakta* text. Additional materialwas taken from theKalikapurana* (KP), a textdating from perhaps theeleventh century A.D. thatcontains considerable Tantricand sakta* influence. A finalsource was the description ofthe Pancaratra-based* templecult of the Sri* Vaisnavas*(SriV*) provided byRangachari. Other materialswere consulted to buttress

conclusions on mantra usage orthe general structure of aTantric puja*, even thoughtheir pre-

sentations of the ritual wereincomplete and often sparse indetails on the mantras involved.But, I was able to examine atleast one work in each of themajor traditionsSakta *,Vaisnava*, and Saivite*.2

Despite significant variations indetail, there was something of aconsensus on the key elementsand structure of the Tantric

puja*. Although the exact orderand degree of elaboration ofeach of the elements oftendiffered to a considerabledegree, their presence in a widerange of textual traditions isremarkable and argues for thedistinctiveness of Tantra as adefinable pan-Hindu category,at least as far as ritual practice isconcerned. As van Kooij hasobserved, there appeared to bean established form of

"common worship"(samanyapuja*) among allmainline theistic groups inIndia from at least the eleventhcentury A.D. (1972, 6).

The ritual structure of the New-and Full-Moon sacrifice(hereafter, NFM) is mirrored inthe other Vedic rituals: TheAgnihotra (and even thestandard grhya* homa) aretruncated versions; the Somasacrifice is an enormously

expanded and elaborated form,in which the NFM is a basicbuilding block (or, as describedby Staal, a fundamental unit ofthe Vedic ritual "grammar,"1979b; 15-22). The NFMappears immediately morecomplex than Tantric puja*because it involves severalparticipants: the patron(yajamana*), on whose behalfthe ritual is staged; his wife; theadhvaryu priest, in charge of

most of the handiwork, plus hisassistant, the agnidhra*; thehotr*, whose principal duty isthe reciting of hymns of praiseduring the offering of theoblations; and the brahman,who, for the most part silently,sits supervising the entireoperation. The Tantric puja*,on the other hand, is basically apersonal worship service of asingle individual, oftenperformed in the privacy of

one's home. Even when a priestassisted by several attendantsperforms the puja* in a temple,the rite retains much of thesame character, only now,personal devotion has becomepublic duty.

In the most general terms, boththe Vedic and Tantric ritualinvolve a preliminary series oftransformations aimed atmaking the concrete elementsinvolvedthe site, utensils,

offering substances, and humanparticipantsfit for divineservice. This is followed by theworship of the god or godsfollowing a basic pattern ofinvocation, praise, offering offood and other pleasingsubstances, and petition. Thedosing activities of the ritualmirror its beginning but in areverse order, as the ritualsituation is in some fashiondissolved, allowing the

participants to return to acondition of normalcy.

The goal of this study is toexamine and compare howlanguageor more broadly,humanly produced sound(since the category "mantra"will sometimes push us to orbeyond the boundaries of"language") functions to bringabout the various elements ofthe ritual situations justoutlined. This will require

saying something about theways one can analyze languagefunctions, generally, beforeproceeding to the specific typesof language use in Vedic andTantric ritual.

Categorizing Ritual Utterances

The most general andcomprehensive way tounderstand the functionslanguage can perform hascertainly come in theburgeoning discussion in recentyears concerning speech acts.(The principal works here areAustin 1962 and Searle 1969;for other relevant studies, see

Wheelock 1982.) This viewstresses that making anutterance does not merelyexpress some idea but,invariably, involvesaccomplishing some purposefulact. To speak is to intend toproduce some effect by meansof your utterance, usually uponthe hearer. For example, thepurpose of a simple declarativestatement is to convince thehearer of your commitment to

the truth of a particularproposition. To utter acommand is to intend to affectthe behavior of the hearer. Or,to utter the declaration "I nowpronounce you husband andwife" is to accomplish the act oftransforming the status of twopeople from single individualsto married couple.

For the purposes of this study,what would prove most usefulwould be a comprehensive

inventory of the types of suchacts that can be accomplishedthrough speech. Philosophersof language and linguists haveproposed taxonomies of thatsort (the one I find most usefulis Searle 1979b). But, theproblem arises that thosetaxonomies are designed tocharacterize ordinary language.As I have tried to point outelsewhere (Wheelock 1982), thelanguage of ritual is decidely

extraordinary, most particularlyin that, as a fixed text ofconstantly repeatedpropositions, its intended effectcan hardly be thecommunication of information.Instead, it is better understoodas serving to create and allowparticipation in a known andrepeatable situation. Rituallanguage effects this generalpurpose by means of four basicutterance types, each associated

with creating some aspect of theritual situation:

1. Presentation ofCharacteristicsindicativeutterances that define theidentities and qualities of thecomponents of the situation;

2. Presentation ofAttitudesstatements of personalfeeling about the situation, suchas optative expressions thatdefine a participant's wishes;

3. Presentation ofIntentionsfirst-person futurestatements of commitment toaction;

4. Presentation ofRequestscommands by whichthe speaker establishes apetitionary relationship with asecond person and defines itsnature.

These types represent acomprehensive categorization

of the things that can be donewith speech in a ritual setting.They are the basic buildingblocks for the linguisticcreation of the ritual situation.A few examples will helpclarify the workings of thesecategories.

The characterizing of thecomponents of a ritual is not asimple matter of spontaneouslyexpressing one's recognition oftheir identity. Instead, the fixedtext of the liturgy presents thespeaker with the characteristicsof each object he confronts.The indicative phrases, ineffect, confer a particularidentify upon an object. Themantra is a good case of this

general point about liturgicalutterances. In the words ofAlper (in Chapter Ten of thiswork), a mantra is "a machinefor thinking." That is, themantra is not a set of wordsyou create to express a thought.Rather, it is something passeddown to you from a privilegedsource of authority that yourecite in order to generate athought. And, in the ritualsetting, not just a thought but a

concrete component of theritual situation is generated. Theritual performer, for instance,will often use a first-per-sonindicative utterance tocharacterize himself or hisactivity. Thus, when the Vedicadhvaryu priest says, "I carryyou [bundle of grass] withBrhaspati's * head"(BaudhSu*), this mantra,coupled with the fact that he ispresently carrying the grass

bundle on his head, serves toestablish his divine status in theritual situation.

The entities with which theworshippers interact are oftenidentified by the second-personindicative utterances used indirectly addressing them. Thegods, for example, take onmanifest form in the mantrasspoken to them, their intangiblenatures being incarnated inspeech. When the Tantric

worshipper says, "O auspiciousone, in everything auspicious, oSiva*, who givest success inevery cause, who yieldestprotection . . . honor to thee"(KP), he is using a second-person statement in adowngraded-predication (arelative or dependent clause) togive a personality to the deityhe is revering.

While establishing thecharacteristics of the ritual

situation is largelyaccomplished with indicativephrases, the presentation ofattitudes is primarily associatedwith optative verb forms.Expressing the performers'attitudes of desiring or wishingfor some state of affairs tocome about is a key componentof any liturgy. The first-personoptative may serve to establishthat the performer has theappropriate attitude of desire to

properly accomplish his ritualduties. Or, as is prevalent in theVedic liturgy, one may expressthe desire of prospering bymeans of the ritual: "By meansof it [sacrifice] may we win thesun-filled realms" (ApSu*).Similarly, the third-personoptative may be used to wishthat something go right in theritual: "O you [wine], may thecurse of Sukra* be removedfrom you" (MNT). Or, it may

express the hope for somebeneficial condition beyond theritual. (Remarkable is the factthat neither Vedic nor Tantricliturgy has any significantnumber of second-personoptatives.)

The presentation of intentionsis a small category, representedby first-person futurestatements, such as "I willworship the Lord by this lordlyaction known as the prayer of

the morning twilight." Said by aSri* Vaisnava* brahman* atthe start of the morningsandhya*, it establishes his

commitment to accomplish hisritual duties, a commonfunction in the Vedic traditionas well.

Finally, by means of thecategory of presentation ofrequests, one establishes thepetitionary relationship basic tothe functioning of the ritual.Taking the form of second-person imperatives, in most

cases, such utterances supplythe dynamic element ofpurpose, interaction, andintended response in the ritualsituation. Many of theseutterances are concerned withobtaining the cooperation of theother ritual participants(including people, utensils, andgods) in the production of theliturgical performance. A majorcomponent of the Vedic ritualwill be the further request for

some kind of blessing, directednot just to the gods but to theritual objects as well. Forexample, the hotr * asks thebundle of grass to "sweep metogether with progeny andcattle" (AsvSu*), and alsoutters the request, "Indra-Agni,slayers of Vrtra . . . prosper uswith new gifts" (AsvSu*).

The four utterance categoriesjust demonstrated represent,then, the basic atomic

components of a liturgicalstructure. While analysis couldprecede by examining the rangeof utterances in the Vedic andTantric rites that fall under eachheading, I have decided that amore interesting approach willbe to show how certain types ofmantras from each categorycombine to fulfill a broaderritual function. That is, theanalysis of the ritual texts willfocus on the level of the

"molecular" rather than the"atomic," although with theadvantage of this rudimentarymodel of the underlying atomicprocess. The broader ritualfunctions that will be focusedon are (1) the transformationsof the concrete components ofthe ritual from mundane objectsto resonances of sacred forcesand their subsequent interactionto accomplish the goals of theritual; (2) the service or

worship of the gods, frominvocation and praise tooffering and petition. Thesetwo functions are dearlydiscernible in both Vedic andTantric rituals, determining arough two-stage structure ofpreparatory transformationsfollowed by the climactic actsof worship. The concern of thispaper will be to show whattypes of mantras are associatedwith each function and, by

using the categories developedto show the ways ritualutterances create situations, todiscuss how the mantrasaccomplish the tasks oftransformation and worship.

Ritual Transformations

The ritual function oftransforming the objectsinvolved in the performance iscentral to both Vedic andTantric rituals. The Vedic NFM

begins with the lengthyprocedure of the adhvaryu'sassemblage and arrangement ofthe objects to be used in thesacrifice, as well as preparationof the site itself. His activitiesare accompanied throughout bymuttered ( jap) formulas(yajus) that identify themanipulated objectsand hisown selfwith various sacredforces. From the perspective ofthe

adhvaryu, the Vedic sacrifice isan array of powerful forces,controlled by his manualactions, directed by hisutterances that, almostindependent of the godsinvolved, fulfills the patron'sdesires for prosperity. TheTantric ritual in an even moresystematic fashion transforms amundane setting into a preciselyand minutely conceived replica

of a sacred cosmos. Thepurification and cosmicizationof ritual components coverseverything from the individualworshipper (sadhaka *), whosebody becomes an image of thedeity in both transcendent andmanifest form, to the altar onwhich the offerings are made,which is changed into amandala* housing the entireretinue of divine beings, themanifold body of the supreme

deity (see, e.g., Eliade 1969,219-27). In both traditions, theprocess of transformationprecedes and is viewed as aprerequisite of the service ofworship.

The utterance type thatpredominates in this process isthe presentation ofcharacteristics, expressed bysentences in indicative form.The ritual performers will usefirst-person indicatives to

characterize their rituallytransformed identities and todescribe the sacred actions theycan now accomplish in theritual arena. First-personoptative utterances will beadded to present those attitudesrequired of a pious participantin the liturgy. The ritual objectsmost often will be characterizedby directly addressing themwith a second-personindicative. Once their

transmundane identity is thusestablished, they can berequested to work for thesuccess of the ritual and directlyfor the benefit of theworshipper.

The Ritual Performers

To begin with, the ritualperformers must undergo aprocess of metamorphosis. InTantric puja* this involves atwofold procedure of

purification in which thedefilements of the mundanebody are removed, followed bythe recreation of the worshipperin the divine image. Thepurification of the worshipperbegins with the obligatorymorning rites (e.g., bathing,sandhya*) that always precedethe puja* proper. Within theritual itself, the processbecomes more explicit anddetailed, being concentrated in

the rites of bhutasuddhi* andnyasa*. Bhutasuddhi*, as thename implies (purification ofthe elements), involvesvisualizing the refining of theworshipper's own body by aprocess of inwardly re-enactingthe destruction of the cosmosand the reabsorption of thebasic elements into primal,undifferentiated matter(discussed by Gupta, in Gupta,Hoens, & Goudriaan 1979, 136;

van Kooij 1972, 14-16). SomeTantric texts will use first-person indicative mantras todescribe what the worshippersees happening: "I dry up thebody both internally andexternally, in the order of tatvas[sic] by which it is constituted,by the wind situated in thenavel. . . I burn the body withthe several tatvas, all sins, allignorance . . . by the fire in theabdomen . . ." (SriV*). With

some variation in differenttexts, the worshipper proceedsto visualize the cosmic firebeing extinguished with earthand the resulting ashes

finally being washed away withwater, completing the processof purification.

While these utterances vividlycharacterize the changes beingwrought, the actualtransformation is felt to beaccomplished by the multiplerepetitions of a series ofnonsentence, bija * mantras.These monosyllabic vocables,

in theory, are sonicmanifestations of basic cosmicpowers (saktis*); literally,seeds of the fundamentalconstituents of the universe.The bijas* used forbhatasuddhi* are formed fromthe series of four semivowels inthe Sanskrit alphabet, eachstanding for one of the fourbasic cosmic elements. Thus,one repeats (or mediates) onyam*, the bija* of wind, and

visualizes the dessication of thebody, followed by multiplerepetition of ram*, standing forfire, then (in some cases) lam*,the earth-bija*, and finallyrepetition of vam*, bringingforth the refreshing cosmicwaters. (This correlation isdiscussed by Woodroffe 1963,43; Padoux [1963] 1975, 271.)

As we will continue to seethroughout the discussion ofTantric mantras, these bija*

mantras are not felt to be meresymbols of the elements, theyare the cosmic elements inessential form. Such aconception of language will beone of the most distinctivemarks of Tantra and that whichmost significantly differentiatesit from the Vedic conception ofmantra. The Perceived ability ofmantras to independently effecta basic transformation in thenature of one of the ritual's

components stands in contrastto the Vedic practice, where themantra will actualize or makeexplicit a transmundane realityalready suggested by thephysical symbolism of action orappearance.

But, how are these bija*mantras to be understood interms of the utterancecategories? I would suggest thatthe due be taken from thosemantras cited earlier that

describe the visualizationprocess: The bijas* ofbhutasuddhi* are the deep-structure of first-personindicative statements. That is,when repeating the syllableram*, for example, theworshipper is implicitly makingthe statement ''I am (or havebecome) fire." Such bijas*,then, emphatically assertand, inthe theory of the Tantra,actually constitutethe

consecrated nature of the ritualperformer. (Thus, they arenonsentences only in terms oftheir surface structure. SeeCoward's discussion in ChapterSix of this volume on single-word mantras standing forcomplete sentence meanings.)

Bhutasuddhi* is followed bythe re-creation of theworshipper's body, now as animage of the cosmos. This isaccomplished through the

process of nyasa* (placing).Like bhutasuddhi*, nyasa*involves the use of non-sentence mantras but with anaccompanying physical act,touching various parts of thebody. The mantras, in effect,are applied to the bodymanually. Two basic types ofmantras are used. First, theletters of the Sanskrit alphabetare placed in order on differentparts of the body (matrka-

nyasa*), providing theworshipper's body with the fiftybasic elements of the Tantriccosmogony. In effect, one ismaking a series of

indicative statements, "This part ofmy body that I touch is now theletter (or element) ka," etc.(Examples can be found at KP59.37-40, and MNT 5.106-108.)

Second, a series of essentiallyreverential mantras are offered to theparts of the body (anga-nyasa *consecrate them as implicitlyidentical to those of the supremedeity. A typical version is thefollowing from the MNT:

following from the MNT:

hram* To the heart, namah*.hrim* To the head, svaha*.hrum* To the crown-lock, vasat*.hraim* To the upper arms, hum*.hraum* To the three eyes, vausat*.hrah* To the two palms, phat*.

Disregarding for the moment thebija* that begins each of thesemantras, a familiarity with Vedicmantras makes it dear that the basicintent is to offer homage. The part of

intent is to offer homage. The part ofthe body occurs in the dative casefollowed by exclamations frequentlyoccuring in the Vedic liturgy:namah*, (reference); svaha*, anexclamation (of dubious meaning)uttered while the adhvaryu offers alibation into the fire from a seatedposition; vasat* and its variantvausat* (again of uncertainmeaning, but perhaps "may hecarry") uttered by the adhvaryuwhen offering the more elaboratelyorchestrated standing oblations;hum*, chanted by the udgatr* to

hum*, chanted by the udgatr* toconnect portions of Saman* Vedaused in the Soma sacrifices; andphat*, an exclamation found in theYajur and Atharva Vedas to driveaway demons. The bojas* at thebeginning of each mantra are formedfrom the first letters of the goddess'own bija*, hrim*, adding the seriesof long vowels as endings. Mostlikely, these stand for the respectiveparts of the body of the goddess, towhich the rest of the mantra thenoffers reverence. A paraphrase ofthe first mantra, then, might be, "To

the first mantra, then, might be, "Toyou, who are the heart of the deity, Ioffer homage." The mantras of theanga-nyasa*, then, transmute thepurified body of the worshipper intothe fully manifest form of thesupreme deity and express anappropriate sense of reverence bymeans of exclamations drawn fromthe Vedic vocabulary for worship ofthe gods.

A culminating statement of theTantric worshipper's identity withthe supreme deity comes in the

the supreme deity comes in theutterance of the Hamsa-mantra*:"The swan [hamsa*], he am I[soham]" (MNT). This mantra,associated with the rites ofbhutasuddhi* and nyasa*, identifiesthe sadhaka with the symbol of thetranscendent form of the deity. Allthe Tantric literature is dear on thepoint that "the quintessence of ritualis the priest's acting as a god" (Diehl156). This is expressed even moreexplicitly in a Saivite* text, wherethe priest says, "He who is Siva*, in

the priest says, "He who is Siva*, inreality I am he" (Somasamb-hupaddhati*3.98).

The transformations of theworshipper, so that he conformswith his true but obscured identity,are a necessary precondition of theservice of

worship to follow. "When thebody has been purified by thesemeans, one is always entitled toworship; not otherwise"(KP55.51). The ritual itself,then, is viewed as god offeringworship to god, as is wellexpressed by this repeatedformula (called satvikatyagam*) in Sri* Vaisnava* rites: "Thedivine lord . . . causes this actto be done [insert name of rite,

e.g., samdhya*, puja*] . . . byhimself, for his own sake andfor his own gratification"; andat the completion of that rite,"the divine Lord . . . has donethis act" (SriV*). These third-person statements of god'sperformance of the ritual,uttered by the worshipper in thecontext of his own enactmentof the puja*, assert the identityof ritual performer and deity.

Turning now to the Vedic

liturgy, one finds some similarconcerns for transforming theritual performers into divinitiesand by similar methods. But,first, one needs to recognizethat the Vedic ritual works onthe assumption of a divison oflabor among the variousparticipants, with the speakingrole of each expressing asignificantly different view ofhis ritual identity and function.The three major and distinctive

parts are those of the adhvaryupriest, the hotr* priest, and theyajamana* (patron).

The mantras uttered by theadhvaryu while preparing thematerial and arena for thesacrifice express a conceptionof his transmundane identity.One often-repeated paradigm isa first-person indicative with amodifying instrumental adjunctthat defines the priest's actionsas actually being accomplished

by a god. For example, there isthe frequent formula "Under theimpulse of the Impeller God,with the hands of Pusan*, withthe arms of the Asvins*, I do[some ritual action] to you[some ritual object]"(BaudhSu* and ApSu*). Otherexamples, "With the arms ofIndra, I pick you up"; "I look atyou with the eye of Mitra";''With the eye of Surya*, I looktoward you''; "With Agni's

mouth I eat you" (BaudhSu*and ApSu*).

One noteworthy differencefrom the Tantric ritual is thatthe Vedic priest (usually theadhvaryu, but occasionallyanother priest, such as thebrahman in the last twoexamples) identifies parts of hisbody with parts of a variety ofdifferent gods. There is nounified nor even consistentparallel of worshipper and god.

As seen earlier, the same priestwill use "the arms of theAsvins*" for one action andthen "the arms of Indra" shortlythereafter. As will become moreobvious soon, thetransformations of objects inthe Vedic ritual arena does notgenerate a precisely orderedmandala* that replicates divinepowers in a one-to-one fashion.Rather, one finds a morevariegated and constantly

changing amalgam of divineresonances.

The parallels to the Tantricritual, then, are striking andobvious. For both, the ritual isa divine activitydone for and bythe gods. The significantdifference is that, in the Vedicsrauta* system, this view islargely confined to theadhvaryu priest and hismanipulations of the physicalcomponents of the ritual. It is

paralleled in the liturgy of thehotr* by an almost independentview of the sacrifice as a purelyhuman

homage to the gods as distinctbeings and is prominentlydisplayed in the set of centralofferings. The hotr * does noteven enter the ritual arena untilthe adhvaryu's preparations arecomplete. At that point, hedeclares Agni to be the divinehotr* and then says of himself,"I am [the] human [hotr*]"(AsvSu*), thus using a first-person indicative to give a

much different characterizationof his identity than is found inthe mantras of the adhvaryu.The hotr* continues thetradition of Rig Veda poetry,which, as aptly characterized byFindly in Chapter One of thisvolume, emphasized mortalman's difference from theimmortal gods. The adhvaryuexpresses the view of the laterYajur Veda, which exalted thepriest to divine status.

The case of the patron(yajamana*) of the Vedicsacrifice provides us with yetanother way of characterizing aritual performer. The effect ofthe sacrifice upon theyajamana* is seen as causinghim to ascend to heaven so that,momentarily, he becomesgodlike. The yajamana* enactsthis ascent himself at the veryconclusion of the rite bystriding the "Visnu-steps*"

from his seat to the Ahavaniya*fire in the east, while he uttersthe following mantras: "You areVisnu's* step, slaying theenemy. With the Gayatri*meter, I step across the earth. ... You are Visnu's* step. . . Istep across the atmosphere . . .across the sky . . . across theregions" (BaudhSu* andApSu*). He follows thisimmediately by worshippingthe fire as he says, "We have

gone to heaven. To heaven wehave gone" (BaudhSu* andApSu*). I would like to drawattention to the role of themantras in explicitly conferringupon the yajamana* theidentity implicit in his actions.The first-person indicativesserved to characterize hismovement toward theAhavaniya* fire as ascendingthe regions, culminating withthe past-tense statements of

arrival in heaven. The second-person statements identified hissteps with those of Visnu*, thegod who reaches heaven inthree strides.

In both Vedic and Tantricritual, a much more minor roleis played by the optativestatements of the appropriateattitude needed by theperformers of the ritual. Theonly example in the Tantricmaterial is the special sectarian

variation of the Vedic Gayatri*verse (Rig Veda 3.62.10). Thegeneral form is "Upon so-and-so may we think (vidmahe).Upon so-and-so may wemeditate (dhimahi*)" whereone inserts the name of one'schosen deity. All of the Sakta*and Vaisnava* sourcesconsulted utilized some suchTantric Gayatri* at one ormore points in their rites. Thegeneral point seems to be to

have the worshipper expressthe desire of turning histhoughts to and thenconcentrating them upon thecentral deity. This attitude ofwanting the god to be the focusof one's mind is a sine qua nonof the puja*. The Vedic liturgyrequires a different set ofproper attitudes. Most expressthe wish of successfullyperforming one's ritual duties.Thus, the patron says of his

vow, a series of abstentions tobe observed for the course ofthe ritual, "May I be capable ofthis which I now undertake"(ApSu*). Similarly, theadhvaryu begins with thegeneral hope, "May I be capablefor the gods" (BaudhSu*), butalso expresses

such specific desires as "Let menot hurt you," while he cuts theoffering cake (BaudhSu *).These examples show, then,that the Tantric performer ismore concerned about properthinking and the Vedicperformer proper doing.

Generally, then, the Vedicliturgy, in comparison to theTantric, includes a greater

variety of mantra forms for theprocess of transforming theritual performers into theirproper identities and expressingtheir proper attitudes. As a lastnote of comparison, the Vedicmantras used to characterize thePerformers show moredependence on some physicalsymbolism of trait or action.The Tantric mantras are capableof creating new realities all bythemselves, without need of

building upon homologies ofoutward appearance. Thus,unlike the Vedic ritual arena,which is an assemblage ofobjects (including people) andactions whose discrete formsare suggestive of divinecorrespondence, the Tantricstage is more of a blank slate,an abstract yantra that theworshipper fills with his ownimagination. The mantra,however, in both cases is the

catalyst that allows the sacredpotential of the ritual setting tobecome a reality.

The Ritual Objects

Besides the human participants,the ritual site and the variouscomponent objects must also betransformed in order to be fitfor the service of the gods. Theprocess begins with expellingthe demonic forces from thesite itself. Actions and physical

objects play a large role in thisprocess for both ritualtraditions. The Vedic priest usesa wooden "sword" to draw inthe ground the protectiveboundaries of the altar; utensilsare sprinkled with water andsinged with fire to expell thedemons, and so on. Similarly,the Tantric worshipper preparesthe site by sprinkling water,using the "divine gaze" (divya-drsti*, striking the ground with

his heel, and burning incense.But, mantras play a key role aswell. Thus, the adhvaryu, afterdigging up the ground for thealtar, says, "The demon Araruis beaten away from the earth";or after passing the utensilsover the fire, ''Burned away isharm; burned away are theenemies" (BaudhSu* andApSu*). The numerousmantras of this type in theVedic liturgy have some form

of evil as the subject in the thirdperson followed by a pastparticiple that defines the justcompleted act of the adhvaryuas doing away with thatdemonic force. The act itselfmay be graphic in its symbolicimport, but the accompanyingmantra is required to makeexplicit that the action hasindeed been effective againstthe invisible malevolentagencies.

Throughout the Tantricliturgies, on the other hand, onedoes not elucidate the demon-expelling procedure with anarticulate statement ofaccomplished effect but, rather,uses a nonsentence bija*mantra to directly augment theprocess. Most common are the"armor" mantra, hum*, and the"weapon" mantra, phat*. Astheir names imply, theseforceful sounding vocables are

used frequently throughout theritual in contexts where a placeor object is purified of evilinfluence and protected

against further attack. Onemight interpret these bijas * assecond-person imperativescommanding the evil spirits todepart; or, perhaps, as first-person indicatives that state thatthe worshipper has indeeddestroyed the unwanted spiritsand protected the ritual space.

The positive transformation ofthe ritual objects into sacred

entities is one of the majorconcerns of each liturgy,dominating the preparatoryproceedings. Each tradition haselaborated a dear theory ofwhat is involved. For the Vedicritual, the controllingconception is that of thebandhu, the esoteric "linkage"between cosmic force and ritualcomponent, so that the ritualsetting is not just a symbolicsimulacrum of the cosmos but a

point of control over thoseforces (see the discussion inWheelock 1980, 357-58). TheTantric ritual, too, emphasizesthe homoligization of the ritualto a divine reality. But, thisreality is single, not multiple asin the Vedic case. As Gondasays, "The final goal of all cultis, according to the Tantricview, the transformation, in theconsciousness of the adept, ofhis own person, of the cult

objects, and of the rite, into thatwhich they respectively reallyare, and consequently intotranscendent unity" (1960-63,II.33). And, of course, thetranscendent unity to whicheverything in the ritual becomesidentical is the supreme deity.Thus the Laksmi* Tantra says,"The (adept should) think aboutarghya, etc. [the objects to beoffered] (as follows); "Theblissful sakti* of mine (i.e.,

Laksmi*)... is indeed thearghya, acamaniya*, and so on"(36.80-86, my emphasis).Therefore, not only theworshipper is made identical tothe central deity, as we sawearlier, but all of thecomponents of the ritual aswell.

The ultimate goal of eachliturgy, then, will be thecharacterization of a ritualobject's bandhu with some

sacred power or its identitywith the supreme deity. Theconferral of a transmundaneidentity is usually expressed inthe liturgy by means of anindicative utterance with theritual object as subject and itsnonliteral identity in thepredicative nominative orpredicate adjective. (This mayoften be in a down-gradedpredicationa subordinate clauseor qualifying adjunct.) Such

articulate statements arerelatively rare in the Tantricliturgy, but one finds, forexample, the following mantrasaddressed to the knife forkilling the animal victim in aSakta* puja*: "Thou artCandika's* tongue" (KP); "Tothe sacrificial knife, infusedwith Brahma,* Visnu*, Siva*,and Sakti*, [let there be]reverence" (MNT). Themundane knife has become a

divine appendage. What isparticularly significant is thatthe inanimate ritual object isaddressed in the second person,as if it were animate.

That is a particularly prominentcharacteristic of the Vedicliturgy. A very sizeableproportion of the entire mantracorpus is composed of directsecond-person characterizationsof the ritual objects. Mosttypical are indicative statements

that use a predicate nominativeto metaphorically identify theobject with some divinepossession. Examples arenumerous, "You [woodensword] are the right arm ofIndra, with a thousand spikes, ahundred edges"; "You[prastara] are Visnu's* top-

knot"; "You [butter pot] areAgni's tongue"; ''You [antelopeskin] are Aditi's skin"; ''You[ball of dough] are Makha'shead" (BaudhSu * and ApSu*

Since one can address the ritualobjects in the second person tocharacterize them, it is notsurprising to see that they aretreated as animate entities inother ways as well. For

example, many of the objects inTantric ritual are worshipped (puj*) by uttering the formula,"To X let there be reverence(namah*)." In this fashion, theMNT has one worship one'sseat, the tripod for the offeringcup, the offering cup, one'swife, the sacrificial animal, thesacrificial knife, and so on.Implicit in such mantras is theidentification of ritual objectand deity. One might

paraphrase them, ''To you ritualobject, who are an aspect of theSupreme, let there bereverence."

The personalized treatment ofthe ritual objects is much moreextensive in the Vedic liturgy.The willing cooperation of thesundry physical components ofthe sacrifice is sought for nearlyevery activity. For example, theadhvaryu addresses theutensijs, "Become pure for the

divine act, for the sacrifice tothe gods"; he asks the ladles,"Come juhu*; come upabhrt*";and he requests of the purifyingwaters, O divine waters, whopurify first, who go first, leadthis sacrificer in front; place thelord of the sacrifice in front"(BaudhSu* and ApSu*). Thetotal volume of such second-person imperative mantrasdirected to ritual objects showsthe Vedic sacrifice to be a dense

set of interactions withanimately conceived entitiesthat require a careful etiquetteof action and speech.

One way of characterizing theritual setting is unique to theVedic liturgy. This is thereification of the whole bymeans of third-personstatements about "the sacrifice."At the conclusion of the rite,the patron says:

The sacrifice became. Itoriginated. It was born. It grew.It became the overlord of thegods. . .. O Agni, the sacrificeis possessed of cows,possessed of sheep, possessedof horses, having manlycompanions, and, always,indeed imperishable(BaudhSu* and ApSu*).

At an earlier point, the patronexpresses the wish, "May thesacrifice ascend to heaven. Maythe sacrifice go to heaven. May

the sacrifice go along that pathwhich leads to the gods"(BaudhSu* and ApSu*).Viewing the sacrifice as anindependent reality, overagainst the various componentparts, and even over againstand superior to the godsthemselves, becomes ahallmark of the developedbrahmarnic* theorizing. Suchan abstract conception isdifficult to represent concretely,

so it finds its most adequateexpression in such third-personutteances as these.

A final topic of concernregarding the ritual componentsis the belief in their ability toactually produce benefits forthe performersindependent ofthe god(s) in whose honor theyare assembled and manipulated.This theme of the causalefficacy of the properlyarranged ritual objects

is prominent in the Vedicliturgy, but starkly absent in theTantric. At first, one mightattribute this to a greater fidelityin the exclusive power andgrace of the deity on the part ofthe Tantric worshipper.However, in the next section,we shall see that even theservice of worship to the deityby and large is not viewed as avehicle for obtaining one's

desires.

Such, however, is not the casein the Vedic ritual. Thehandiwork of the adhvaryu, inparticular, is seen as arraying apotent set of forces that can bedirected to bring about bythemselves various forms ofprosperity. This is seen mostclearly in the second-personimperative utterances addressedto the ritual objects, asking forsome kind of blessing. For

example, the adhvaryuaddresses in turn each one ofthe set of firmly interlockingpotsherds on which the offeringcake is baked:

You are firm. Make the earthfirm. Make life firm. Make theoffspring firm. Shove hisrelatives around this sacrificer.You are a prop. Make theatmosphere firm. Make the out-breath firm. Make the in-breathfirm. Shove his relativesaround this sacrificer. You are

a bearer. Make heaven firm.Make the eye firm. Make theear firm. Shove his relativesaround this sacrificer. You area supporter. Make the quartersfirm. Make the womb firm.Make offspring firm. Shove hisrelatives around this sacrificer.(BaudhSS * and ApSS*)

Similarly, the patron says to thegrass strewn on the altar, "Makerefreshment and vigor swell forme . . . brahmanhood* andsplendor . . . warrior-hood and

power . . . the commoners andgrowth . . . life andnourishment . . . progeny andcattle" (ApSu*).

One final set of utterancesexpresses the view of thesacrifice as a direct means forfulfilling one's desires. Theseare the first-person optativemantras spoken by the patron,indicating his hopeful attitudethat the ritual will bring aboutsome specific goal. Uttered

immediately after each of theoblations, they include suchwishes as

By the sacrifice to the gods forAgni, may I be food-eating.By the sacrifice to the gods forAgni-Soma, may I beVrtrakilling*.By the sacrifice to the gods forIndra, may I be powerful.By the sacrifice to the gods forIndra-Agni, may I be powerfuland food-eating.By the sacrifice to the gods for

Mahendra, may I attain tovictoriousness and greatness(BaudhSu* and ApSu*).

It seems that the hopes of theyajamana* are placed not somuch on the gods to whom theoffering is directed but on theperformance of the ritual itself.His expression of the hoped-fordirect connection between typeof ritual and specific goalbecomes the most succinctformulation of the theory of the

Vedic sacrifice.

The Service of Worship

At the most fundamental andovert level, both Vedic andTantric rituals are banquets inhonor of the gods. As we havejust seen, however, the ritualsalso contain many other levelsof identity. But the service ofworship is clearly the mostprominent theme in eachtradition when one examines its

place in the ritual structure. Ineach case, it forms the climacticand culminating phase of theentire ritual sequence,relegating the theme of ritualtransformations to a peripheraland largely preparatory status.

Within the worship serviceproper, there is a fairly well-defined, logical structure. Onebegins, quite understandably,by invoking the gods, usuallywith imperative utterance forms

that request their presence. Thisis followed by showingreverence for the deities, withverbal expressions of praise forthe god's attributes playing amajor part. Here, indicativestatements of the gods'praiseworthy characteristics willpredominate. Next will comethe climactic acts of offeringfood and other pleasingsubstances to the honored,divine guests. The complex

formal etiquette at this pointwill invariably involvestatements to convey theappropriate obsequiousness andsolicitousness on the part of theperformers. One will find, forexample, indicative utterancesthat define the worshippers' actsas those of offering orimpertative statementsrequesting and optativestatements hoping that the godswill be pleased by the gifts.

Finally, one comes to theenunciation of the desires onehopes to attain from thesatisfied gods. These are mostoften couched in the directaddress of second-personimperative phrases.

The process of showinghomage to the gods, as mightbe readily inferred, is a veryarticulate activity, largelyaccomplished by speech acts.This was less necessarily the

case in the transformations ofthe physical components of theritual, where the symbolism ofappearance and function couldcarry much of the weight ofmeaning and where verbalrequests could be augmented byphysical manipulations to bringabout a desired effect. Indealing with the gods, on theother hand, their intangiblebeings and personalities, theirinteractions with the

participants, become manifestalmost exclusively throughlanguage; and the performers'relationship to them cannot beone of simple manipulation butmust be the epitome ofcourtesy, which meanscushioning every act withwords of explanation andconcern.

Invocation

The participation of the gods in

the ritual can only commenceupon their arrival at the scene.A very well developed part ofVedic and Tantric liturgies isthe invocation of the gods. Asmight be expected, the simplestmeans to accomplish this is asecond-person imperativeasking the god to come. Forexample, the Vedic hotr *begins the service of offering tothe gods by having theAhavaniya* fire stoked as he

calls upon

Agni: "O Agni, being praised,come to the feast that givesoblations" (AsvSu *). But, inaccordance with the division oflabor characteristic of the Vedicritual, the invocation of the restof the gods then formally isturned over to Agni, himself,the divine messenger: "Bring[a3vaha*] the gods for thesacrificer. O Agni, bring Agni.Bring Soma. Bring Agni. Bring

Prajapati* . . . Bring Indra-Agni. . . Bring the gods whodrink the clarified butter."

The invocation (avahanam*)of the supreme deity into theritual setting is also a clearlydelineated aspect of the Tantricpuja*. However, the deity is notdescending from the distantheaven of the Vedic cosmologybut is drawn out of the veryheart of the worshipper andasked to become manifest in

some concrete object in theritual (Nowotny 1957, 110). Forexample, Siva* is invoked intoa temple's lingam*: "O, Lord,who protects the world,graciously be present in thisLinga* till the end of theworship. . . O god of gods . . .come for Apisekam*, for theprotection of the soul" (cited inDiehl 1956, 118). Or, as in thisexample from Sakta* ritual,where the goddess is asked to

enter a flower placed on themain yantra: "Krim* O Adya-Kalika* Devi*, along with all ofyour following, come here,come here" (MNT).

A unique concern of the Tantricliturgy is that the gods remainfor the entire course of theritual. Thus, after the goddess isinvoked into the flower on theyantra, the worshipperaddresses her, "O Queen of theDevas, you who are easy to

obtain through devotion,accompanied by yourfollowers, be very firm [inremaining here] as long as Iwill be worshipping you. . ..Remain here, remain here.Settle yourself down here; settleyourself down here. Restrainyour feet" (MNT).

As to why the Tantric ritualadds this concern, I can onlyspeculate that the atmosphere ofbhakti makes the Sadhaka*

more humble about his abilityto influence the behavior of thedeity, including this very basicissue of whether the deity willdeign to come and stay at hisritual. Plus, the Tantricemphasis on experiencing thedivine presence as a vividvisualization, which comes onlythrough the lengthy practice ofmeditation, might tend toproduce a sense of uncertaintyabout the deity's willingness to

appear and remain before theworshipper's consciousness.Thus, recall that the only wishexpressed in the Tantric liturgywas the optative statement oftheir Gayatri*, "Upon the deitymay we think. Upon the deitymay we meditate."

Another unique feature of theTantric liturgy is that itproceeds from invocation toproviding the deity with adetailed manifest form. The

deity does not remain just asubtle abstraction of thetranscendent source of thecosmos but, through the liturgy,develops into a complexembodiment of the entirecreated universe. This processbegins with the establishmentof the life breaths in the image(yantra, statue) that theinvoked deity has just entered(the rite of prana* pratistha*).In a reflex of the mantras used

for invocation, a third-personoptative is used to express thehope that the life breaths willcome into the image and remain

there: "Let the five life breathsof the Goddess Tripura * andher spouse be here in theyantra; let her soul be herewith that of her spouse; let allher sense-organs be here; andlet her speech, mind, sight,faculty of hearing and smelling,her life breath, etc. be here"(cited in Gupta, Hoens, &Goudriaan 1979, 150).

A further expression of thedeity's acquisition of a manifestform comes with the worshipof the limbs of the divine body,using a set of mantras seenbefore in the Tantricworshipper's rite of nyasa*. Inthe Sakta* service, one doeshomage to the comers of thehexagon within the centralmandala*, saying, "Hram* Tothe heart, namah*. Hrim* Tothe head, svaha*," etc. (MNT).

As with the rite of nyasa*, thepoint of these mantras seems tobe twofold: to identify parts ofthe mandala* with parts of thedeity's body; and to expressreverence with the set oftraditional Vedic exclamations.

Praise

The next stage in the service ofthe gods involves the offeringof praise. The most prevalentway of doing this is to recite

their worshipful characteristics.In the Vedic sacrifice, this taskfalls almost exclusively uponthe hotr*, whose principal dutyis the recitation of selectionsfrom the Rig Veda toaccompany the major oblations.Most of these are second-person indicative utterances thatproclaim the exalted status andfunction of the god, as in theseexamples: "Along with themwho are the divine priests, you,

o Agni, are the best invokeramong the hotrs"; "You, OSoma, are a mighty ruler and aVrtra-slaying* king"; "You[Indra] are the lord of thewealthy rivers" (AsvSu*). Or,one mentions the great mythicdeeds of the gods, with theimplied hope that they willagain perform effective acts onbehalf of the worshippers:"You two, Agni-Soma, freedthe rivers that had been seized

from insult and shame''; ''You[Indra], who have beeninvoked many times, youconquered the enemies"(AsvSu*).

The Tantric liturgy also mayuse second-person statementsto directly praise the deity, butpractically all of these aredowngraded predicationsimbedded in other utteranceforms. And, for the most part,they are confined to a single

hymn of praise (stuti) near thevery end of the puja*. As anexample, one finds in the KP:"O auspicious one, ineverything auspicious, o Siva*,who givest success in everycause, who yieldest protection,Tryambaka*, Gauri*,Narayani*, honor to thee."

Such a relative lack, or at leastconfinement, of articulatestatements of praise seems to bebalanced by other forms for

expressing the deity'spraiseworthy traits elsewhere inthe puja*. Much attention isgiven at the start of the rite toan inner or mental worship(antaryaga*), where theistadevata* is supposed to bevisualized in minute and preciseiconographic detail. Theemphasis is on the radiantloveliness of the deity's physicalform and dazzling apparel.Frequently, the text's third-

person indicative descriptionsof the visualization becomeverbalized mantras, as here, in

a set of utterances thatRangachari says are used topraise god at the conclusion ofthe mental worship: "He [Visnu*] is one . . . possessing a bodyof the color of clouds full ofwater vapor; one having eyeslike the petal of a lotus flower .. .; one having a face like that ofa brilliant full-moon; onehaving a very pleasing andsmiling attitude; one having red

lips" (SriV*).3 Worth noting,then, in conclusion, is that animportant part of the homageexpressed in the Tantric puja*concerns the physical traits ofthe deity. This is certainly notthe case in the Vedic ritual,where one mentions the deedsand functions of the god withalmost no mention of hisphysical appearance.

A final form used by theTantric to express the reverable

qualities of the deity is sonic inmedium but inarticulate. It isthe use of a connected series ofbija* mantras that togetherform the mula-* or root-mantraof the deity. For example, themula-mantra* of the Devi*given in the MNT is "hrim*.srim*. krim*. Paramesvasvari*svaha*." This mantra (and thecase is the same for the mula-mantra* of whatever may bethe ista-devata* of the

particular puja*) is repeatedwith great frequency and greatpervasiveness throughout thecourse of the ritual. But, theclimax certainly comes near theend of the puja* with the rite ofjapa. This mantra is thenmuttered in a state of raptconcentration for 108 or even1008 times, as carefully countedby a rosary. (Details on themethod can be found inWoodroffe, 1959, 535-36 and

Gupta, Hoens, & Goudriaan1979, 153-54.) In the theory ofTantra, "the mantra of adevata* is the devata*"(Woodroffe 1963, 235). So, themultiple repetitions of themula-mantra*, in effect, are ameans of producing a concrete,sonic manifestation of the deity.The element svaha*, like themore frequent namo (as in theother sectarian mula-mantras*,namo sivaya* or om* namo

vaisnave*), is an expression ofreverence directed to themanifest god. And, surely, it isa form of praise to use themantra to bring the deity tomind and fix one's thoughts onher or him. (Coward willpresent the grammarians' viewthat such chanting enables theworshipper to clearly "see" themeaning contained in the wordsof the mantra.)

The most tangible way in which

praise is demonstrated comeswith the actual offering of giftsto the gods. The centerpiece ofboth ritual traditions, the act ofoffering, is necessarilyaccompanied by mantras thatexplicitly define the nature ofthe act. That is, the rite ofoffering not only requires thepresentation of material objectsto the gods but demands averbal etiquette to express bothconcern for the gods' feelings

and the appropriate intention bythe worshippers. This mayinvolve simply stating the verbof action, along with adeclaration of the objectoffered, in the formula used foreach of the upacaras* (sixteenpleasing substances, from waterfor washing the feet to savoryfood to incense and lamps) of aTantric puja*: "I offer waterfor bathing, clothing, andjewels. Svaha*" (MNT). Or, ore

typically, the verb is leftunderstood but the recipient isnamed and an exclamation isappended to highlight thecentrality and finality of the act.For example, the adhvaryuoffers a butter

libation with "To Prajapati *,svaha*>" (BaudhSu* andApSu*); the Tantric worshippresents water to the goddesswith "To the devata*, svaha*"(MNT), in each case signallingthat the intent of the behavior isto transfer ownership of theitem proferred.

Important in Vedic and Tantricritual is to beseech the invited

deities to accept and be pleasedby the proffered gifts. Mostusually, this is a direct second-person imperative, as in theseVedic examples: "You foodeaters and you who are worthyof sacrifice... delight in myoffice of hotr"; "O you [Agni]who are wealth bestowing. . .enjoy the bestowing of wealth"(AsvSu*). Similarly, one findsin Tantric puijas* such formsas

O you who have caused the endof tens of millions of kalpasaccept this excellent wine,along with the suddhi* (MNT).Enjoy this oblation, o Siva*(MNT).OM* . . . accept this [name ofeach particular offering] . . .svaha* (LT).[O Laksmi*] accept the mentalworship that has been properlyconceived (LT).O Bhagavan, accept this(SriV*).What has been given with

complete devotion, viz., theleaf, the flower, the fruit, thewater, and the eatablespresented, do accept these outof compassion (with me) (KP).

A form not found in the Tantricliturgy is the Vedic expressionof the gods' having indeedenjoyed themselves at thesacrifice. As part of the hotr's*"well-recited speech"(suktavaka*) after the principaloblations have been offered, he

says "Agni has enjoyed thisoblation, has exhiliratedhimself, has made (for himself)a superior greatness. Soma hasenjoyed" etc., for each of thegods to whom offering wasmade (AsvSu*). This points upa major difference in tonebetween the Vedic and Tantricrituals. The Tantric puja*exudes the air of bhaktihumility before theawesomeness of a supreme

deity. In a ritual that concludeswith such gestures ofsubservience as prostration(pranamam*) and respectfulcircumambulation(pradaksina*), one asks thatthe god or goddess "accept"[ grah] one's offering. TheVedic priest, on the other hand,seems much more a diplomatamong superior butmanipulable beings. He is moreconcerned that the gods enjoy

[ jus*] the offerings, apparentlyassuming that acceptance atleast is guaranteed. But, a muchgreater certainty of the results,as well, is seen in the past-tensedeclarations of the gods'enjoyment. Again, the Vedicsacrifice is seen less as a way ofprompting the divine grace thanas a seal of a dependable,almost contractual bondbetween the gods and people.

Petition

Finally, we come to thoseutterances that express thedesires underlying themotivation for the service to thegods. In the Vedic ritual, these

are quite clearly wishes forearthly prosperity and most takethe form of direct second-person imperatives addressed tothe gods. Many of these arespoken by the hotr * during themajor oblations on behalf ofthe patron. For example,

Indra-Agni, slayers of Vrtra*with the beautiful thunderbolt,prosper us with new gifts.O Indra, bring treaures with

your right (hand).O Agni grant the enjoyments ofa good household; divideamong us honors.O Agni-Soma, to him, whotoday dedicates this speech toyou two, give manly, vigor,wealth in cattle, and possessionof good horses. (AsvSu*)

The yajamana*, particularly atthe close of the NFM where heworships the fires and the sun,will direct requests to the godshimself: "O Agni, doing good

work, purify yourself for us,giving me splendor, heroism,prosperity and wealth"; "[OAditya] Give me life. . . Placesplendor in me (BaudhSu* andApSu*); "He who hates me andhe whom I hate. . . all of them,o Agni, burn up completelyhewhom I hate and who me"(ApSu*).

Noteworthy is the fact that, bycomparison, the Tantric liturgyhas very few such direct

requests. The few instancesthere are show little concern forforms of earthly prosperity.Thus, in the MNT, one has therequest, "Give me [o Devi]endless liberation," when thefood and wine is offered; andone says "Let there be success[siddhi] for me, o goddess,because of your grace" at theend of the japa. The generalconclusion seems clear. Thereason for performing the

Tantric puja* does not lie insome external goal but is theexperience of oneness with thedeity to be obtained within theritual itself. It is a form ofsadhana* whose final resultshould be the consciousness ofgod doing homage to god.

However, this has notprevented the puja* frombecoming a vehicle forobtaining mundane desires.This is done largely by tacking

on a set of wishes to the puja*proper. For example, after thejapa and stuti near the end ofthe rite, the MNT says one is toinsert a protective mantra(kavaca) that expresses thehopes, "Hrim* May Adya*protect my head. Srim* MayKali* protect my face," etc. fora total of twenty-six parts of thebody. The mantra itself is listedin a chapter separate from therest of the puja*. The MNT

also mentions that a special setof oblations may be added afterthe usual homa (fire sacrifice)"for the attainment of one'sdesires" (6.160). Guptadiscusses an entire category ofkamya-puja*, speciallydesigned forms of the basic riteused to achieve particular endssuch as curing disease, ensuringone's safety, or injuring anenemy (Gupta, Hoens, &Goudriaan 1979, 159-61).4 So,

while, in theory, the ritual is anend in itself, the practice tendsto be otherwise, though with

some recognition that suchmundane motives do notbelong in the heart of the puja*.

Conclusions

After surveying the variety ofliturgical functions performedby Vedic and Tantric mantras,what can be said about thetheories of ritual and languagethat undergird each tradition? It

is dear that both place apremium on ritual as thereligious practicecreating andentering into the formalized andrepeatable ritual situation is theessential means for enhancingone's religious worth. And, wehave seen that the generaloutline of Vedic and Tantricritual practice is the sameareverential attendance upon thegods as honored guests,preceded by the transformation

of the ritual arena into amicrocosm of sacred forces.Yet, despite these broadsimilarities, the analysis ofmantra usage has shown somevery distinctive differences.

The Theories of Ritual

First of all, the Vedic sacrifice,while also aiming to overcomethe separation between man andgod, assumes the ultimatereality of that distinction. The

priest acts like a god, the patronis translated into heaven, butonly temporarily, for the courseof the ritual. The great varietyof beings that are addressed inthe second personfrom humanparticipants, to ritual utensils, tothe various godsindicates thebasic world-view of the Vedicritualist. There exist a multitudeof powers in the universe, eachrequiring representation andcourteous, diplomatic handling

at the sacrifice. On the humanside, the Vedic ritual is acomplex social institution,involving the verballyorchestrated cooperation ofseveral priests who act asintermediaries for theyajarnana*, who himself is therepresentative of his entirefamily. The Vedic mantras,then, serve not just to linkworshipper and deity but todefine a whole, complex

network of relationships.

The Tantric puja*, on the otherhand, postulates the ultimateunreality of all distinctions andseeks to affirm the eternal truthof the worship-per's identitywith the deity. The mantrasreflect this simplified worldview, recognizing fewer distinctbeings, focusing on the onerelation of man to god, andattempting to express sonicallythe collapse of the manifest

universe into a single category.Therefore, while the Vedicliturgy is using many mantras tostate the various bandhusbetween ritual object andcosmic force, the Tantric liturgyis working to realize the one,all-encompassing bandhu: god= ritual = worshipper.

In contrast to this Tantric view,where the deity becomes theritual, in the Vedic tradition, theritual becomes a reification,

"the sacrifice" as anindependent force becoming animportant topic of the liturgy.And, rather than seeing theritual as an end in itself, as doesthe Tantric worshipper for themost part, the sacrifice is seenas the great vehicle for

procurring the sundry forms ofprosperity, which are what theVedic life is all about. Thus,much of the mantra corpus inthe Vedic sacrifice serves thepurpose of expressing thepatron's wishes and directing,cajoling, or asking theassembled forces to worktoward their fulfillment outsidethe ritual setting. The Tantricgoal of siddhi or moksa * will

be realized within the ritualitself.

The Theories of Language

The differing worldviews andritual goals of the Vedic andTantric traditions, then, arereflected in differing forms ofmantra usage. These, in turn,are supported by distincttheories of language andmantra. Throughout the Vedictradition, the mantra stands as a

means to the ends of thesacrifice. The Tantric mantra,on the other hand, as theessence of the ritual procedure,is an object of value in itself,being in theory the most subtlemanifest form of the deity. TheVedic mantra truthfullydescribes and thereby actualizesa bandhu between ritual objectand cosmic entity; the Tantricmantra is itself the ritualterminus of the bandhu with the

divine realm. Such basicdifferences in evaluation of themantra lead to significantlydifferent theories of language.The Tantra will focus most ofits theoretical energy onanalyzing the nature of mantrasand language, even beingfrequently termed theMantrasastra*. The deitybecomes manifest as the worldfirst by taking on sonic form,the concrete objects or referents

(artha) of those primordialwords following afterwards inthe course of cosmic evolution.(Detailed presentations of thistheory can be found in Padoux[1963] 1975, 68-73; Woodroffe1959, 462-90.)

In contrast, the orthodoxformulation of the Vedictradition, the Purva-mimamsa*.virtually ignores mantras. Itskey task is to determine a validmeans (pramana*) for

ascertaining dharma. Theconclusion is that the Vedaprovides the sole foundationfor reliable knowledge of one'sduty, but not in the collectionof mantras. Only the set ofexplicit injunctions to action(vidhi) found in the brahmana*portion of sruti* are to becounted as relevant to definingdharma. The exegeticalapparatus proceeds to channelmost of its efforts into

analyzing those passages,relegating a comparatively fewpages to discussing the Vedicmantras. (The essential pointsare summarized in Jha, [1942]1964, 159; [1911] 1978, 110-11,and 125-26.)

The Vedic mantras, then, forma component of the properaction needed for an effectiveperformance of the sacrifice.While the orthodox traditionwill push to an extreme this

view of the mantra as an actoreven as a soundsubstanceneeding only to beprecisely enacted (i.e.,pronounced) not necessarilyunderstood, the originalconception seems to be of themantra as a statement of truthwhose mere utterance in theritual context is an effective act.It concretizes a bandhu that canthen be actively manipulated toproduce one of the various

ends sought through sacrifice.The complex array of forcesthat must be dealt with to obtain

the great variety of goals in therepetoire of the Vedic sacrificemeans having a wideassortment of tools at one'sdisposal. Therefore, the Vedicpriest must memorizehundredsif not thousandsofmantras to serve his purpose.

This leads to a preciseindividuation of the task ofeach mantra, so that, for

example, in the entire course ofthe Vedic NFM, there areperhaps less than two dozenrepetitions in a total ofapproximately fifteen hundredutterances. The contrast withthe Tantric liturgy is emphatic.Instead of repeating manydifferent mantras, the Tantricworshipper reaches the climaxof the performance by repeatingone mantra many times. TheTantric mantras take on many

forms and perform many ritualfunctions, as we have seen indetail earlier. However, the endto which they all point is oneand the samerealization ofidentity with the deity. At thispoint, the mantra is no longer ameans to an end, it is amanifestation of the goal itself.And, the repetition of the deity'smantra is not just an act to bemechanically performed butmust be accompanied by proper

thought, the goal of the ritualbeing realized when theconsciousness of theworshipper blends with thethought-power represented bythe mantra. While the Vedicliturgy uses language as a toolof proper action, the Tantricritual makes action asubordinate of language inproducing proper thought (anassessment that will beseconded by Alper's discussion

of Saivite * mania, as inChapter Ten).

Continuity and Change

To be able to understand thefactors that produced thecontinuities and differencesbetween Vedic and Tantricritual practices and conceptionsof mantra, in particular, is adesideratum for historians ofHunduism. (Some remarks onthis topic can be found in

Nowotny 1957, 114-22.) I haveneither the time nor the data toenter into this difficultdiscussion at this point, but Iwould like to suggest adevelopmental structureimplicit in each liturgy. Onebegins with the most overtdimension of the Vedicsacrifice, the service of worshipto the gods. It is most overt,quite literally, in that it is theportion of the liturgy that is

spoken aloud, by the hotr*, soas to be audible to all present.The utterances of the adhvaryu(and yajamana*), on the otherhand, which are used totransform the sacrifice into anassemblage of potent forceshaving an independent efficacy,are muttered ( jap) under hisbreath. The hotr* represents thetradition of the Rig Veda, inwhich insightful thought andthe eloquence of the artist are to

inspire priestly speech. Thelanguage of the adhvaryushows the ascendancy of theYajur Veda, where the essenceof priestly accomplishment hasbecome the workmanlike skillof the technician in performingproper action.

As the theory of the sacrificedevelops in the brahmana*literature and the place of thegods continues to give way tothe action of the sacrifice itself,

the further idea is introducedfinally that one does not evenhave to speak to produce aneffect in the ritual but maysimply think about the

true identity of some sacrificialcomponent. The brahmanas *stress the power of "he whoknows thus" (yo evam veda).The conception of the nature ofthe sacrifice, its correlations orbandhus with the realm ofsacred forces, moves from theloudly articulate worship of thegods, to the muttered directingof a multitude of powers, to thesilent rehearsal of the most

precious truths of homologybetween micro- andmacrocosms. That these layersof sound in the liturgy reallyrepresent stages of historicaldevelopment is difficult toassert with complete certainty.However, the move from soundto silence, from external actionto internalized thought, frombewildering complexity to thefew most basic bandhus, seemsaptly to characterize the

tendency of the speculativetextsthe brahmanas*,aranyakas*, and upanisads*.

Despite the great separation intime, the Tantric conception ofritual and mantra seems to takeup the developmental processwhere the Vedic tradition leftoff. For the Tantra begins withthe assumption that the mosteffective ritual is silent,internalized, and recognizesonly one bandhu, namely, the

identity of worshipper anddeity. Thus, Tantric literaturesays that external worship of animage of the deity is designedfor the lowest humanpersonality type, someoneincapable of understanding thehigher truth without concreteprops. (Woodroffe, 1959, 514;Padoux [1963] 1975, 48). Themost effective mantra, as well,is not externalized speech.Rather, "prayer without sound

is recommended as the mostexcellent of all" (KP 57.88). Or,as stated more systematically inthe LT:

The vacika* (voiced) [type ofjapa] is [desirable] for minorrituals, the upamsu* (silent)[type] is for rituals leading tothe achievement of success, themanasa* (mental) [type] forrituals yielding the wealth ofliberation, [while] the dhyana(meditated) [type of japa] is forachieving success in every

[endeavor]. (39.35)

Even when the Tantric liturgy isuttered aloud, thepredominance of themonosyllabic bija* mantras,which have no exoteric butonly esoteric meaning, tends tocarry one beyond theboundaries of language. AsPadoux (quoting Renou) putsit: "After all, to exalt thebija-mantra*, as does Tantrism,isn't that to place at the highest

level a form of speech 'situatedbeyond language and eventuallyright to the zone of silence'?"([1963] 1975, 363). The bija*mantras do not point outwardto some referent in theobjective world and thus, are"meaningless" in any ordinarysense of that term. Instead, theypoint backwards to the sourceof language, which is thesource of all creation itself. (Apoint made by Padoux [1963]

1975, 294-96 and restated byEliade 1969, 214.) Thus, nearlyevery bija* ends with thenasalization (anusvara*) thatdraws out the vowel and slowlyfades awayrepresenting thefinal sound of the cosmosbefore it becomes completelyreabsorbed into unity andsilence.

But the bija* mantras, inanother sense, also representthe first man-

ifestations of a new creation.The movement towardinternalization, silence, andunity begun in the Vedic ritualtradition, culminates in theTantric liturgy, but it alsobegins to reverse itself. Afterdissolving the universe withbija * mantras in the rite ofbhutasuddhi* and experiencingthe unity of worshipper anddeity as one performs the inner

puja*, the Tantric ritualproceeds to the externalizedworship, where the universebecomes re-created in itscomplex, manifest form. At thispoint the liturgy is notoverwhelmed by the bija*mantras but, as was shownearlier, contains a sizablenumber of utterances that arequite intelligible. As in theVedic ritual, the utterances thenarticulate the ideal situation in

which the performer arrangesthe assembly of sacred forcesand interacts graciously withthe divine guests.

Overtly, the Vedic and Tantricliturgies showed manysimilarities in the kinds ofintelligible mantras in sentenceform that they contained. Thiswas a reflection of theircommon manifest functiontopay homage to the gods. But,just as this outer form is

supplanted by a more basic,esoteric understanding of theritual as a direct manipulationof cosmic forces or a worshipof oneself as identical with thedeity, so, too, do the externalsimilarities of Vedic and Tantricmantras finally give way to anunderlying difference in theconception of language. Thelanguage of the Vedic liturgy iseternal, emanating from thatfount of all speech and

knowledge, the Veda. Thecomplex structure of the worldarticulated in the Vedic mantrasis a primordial truth to becontinually re-enacted in thesacrifice. The liturgicallanguage of the Tantra, on theother hand, is a creation intime. Even though the Tantricmantras stand for the firstmanifest forms of creation, theystill point back beyondthemselves to their ultimate

sourcesilence.

Notes

1. BaudhSu* included the partsof the adhvaryu priest (1.1-1.21), yajamana* (3.15-3.22),and brahman (3.23-3.26);similarly for the ApSu*,adhvaryu (1.1.1-3.14.4),yajamana* (4.1.1-4.16.17), andbrahman (3.18.1-3.20.10).AsvSu* provided the part ofthe hotr* (1.1.1-1.11.16). In

what follows, all translationsfrom these sutras* are my own.

2. Scholars of Indian religionsfind it difficult to define Tantrawith any precision. However,there is a concensus that theschools whose works will beutilized in this paper, viz. thePancaratra*, Saiva*Siddhanta*, and Sakta*, sharea set of "Trantric"characteristics (see Goudriaan,in Gupta, Hoens, & Goudriaan

1979, 6-9).

The material on puja* in theMNT is found from 5.1-7.64.All translations from this textare my own, though greatlyaided by Woodroffe (1972).Translations of those portionsof the KP relevant to the ritualwere taken from van Kooij(1972, 39-90, Chapters 54-59).

Some confirming andsupplementary details on

Sakta* puja* came from A.

Bharati (1965); S. Gupta (inGupta, Hoens, & Goudriaan1979); and Nowotony (1957).Another Pancaratra * textconsulted was the Laksmi*Tantra (LT), translated by S.Gupta (1972). Two additionalsources on Saivite* practicewere the fine study of Diehi(1956) and the ritual manual,Somasambhu* Paddhati,edited and translated by

Brunner-Lachaux (1963-77, I).

3. Cited in Rangachari (1931,143). In the MNT, thestatements about thevisualizations for inner worshipmuch more dearly areinstructions rather thanliturgical utterances: "In themorning meditate upon her inher Brahmi* form as a maidenof ruddy hue, with a puresmile" and so on (5.56).

4. Farquar cites an authority onmedieval liturgy thatdistinguished between "pure"tantras, those that only discussthe path to liberation, and"mixed" tantras, those that alsoinclude instructions onworshipping the goddess forearthly blessings (1967, 268). InChapter Ten, Alper says onecould even make a distinctionbetween mantras whose use is"quotidien" (i.e., oriented to

pragmatic or magical ends) andthose that are "rederuptive"(moksa* oriented).

Chapter 4Mantra in Ayurveda *: AStudy of the Use of Magico-Religious Speech in AncientIndian MedicineKenneth G. Zysk

Almost every ancient culturehas witnessed a fundamentalunion between science and

religion at some time in itsdevelopment. This especially isthe case with the science ofmedicine in Vedic India, fordiseases, like blessings, wereconsidered to have been sent bysupernatural beings. So in theAtharvaveda (and to a certainextent in the Rgveda*), we arepresented with an entirepantheon of demons who bringabout bodily distress. From thecontents of the mantras used to

remove the demonically causedmaladies, a threefoldclassification of diseaseemerges. (1) Internal diseases:these may be divided furtherinto internal diseases related toyaksma* (consumption,tuberculosis) or takmán (feversyndrome, malaria) and internaldiseases not closely related toyaksma* or takmán. The firstincludes yaksma*, takmán andall diseases and symptoms

related to them, while thesecond encompasses amiva*,viskandha-samskandha*(tetanus), ascites (Varunas'sdisease), insanity, worms, andurine (and feces) retention. (2)External diseases: these, for themost part, are injuries resultingfrom war or from accidents andinclude fractures, wounds, andloss of blood; but skindisorders, e.g., kilasa*(leukoderma), apacít (rash with

pustules), and loss of hair, alsofall into this category. (3)Poisons: these are toxins,whose effects are conceived tobe caused by various demonicelements stalking their prey dayand night. They in-dude insects,snakes, and vegetable matter.1

The cure for these diseasesrequired an elaborate religiousritual in which remedies, usedboth therapeutically andmagically, were consecrated

and demons expelled. Theactions were performed to theaccompaniment of mantras,which in large part came fromthe Atharvaveda. They have acorresponding section(Bhaisajya*) in the ritual text,Kausika* Sutra*, whichoutlines the prescribed rituals inwhich the charms are to beemployed. Unfortunately, thetext derives from a later period,so that many of the original

rites have been lost. Bloomfieldhas observed that

many of the procedures in theKausika * Sutra* are purelysecondary, formulated to fit thecontext of the particularhymns.2 Therefore, we cannotcompletely depend on them toprovide accurate informationconcerning the magico-religiouspractices of the early Indians. Adiscernible picture of Vedicmedicine, however, can bepainted from the contents of the

mantras themselves.

The Vedic Indian's attitudetoward internal disease wasdominated by the superstitionthat evil spirits and demonsinvaded the body and causedtheir victims to exhibit a state ofdisease. The impetus for theattack may have come from abreach of a certain taboo, froma sin committed against thegods, or from witchcraft andsorcery.

The idea of health in a positivesense is wanting in early Vedicmedicine. Any notion of theconcept is to be found in thenegative sense, as the oppositeof what was understood to bedisease, or more specifically, inthe absence of any particulardisease-causing demons, ofinjuries and damages, and oftoxins.

In order to restore the patient to

a sound state of mind andbody, the healer or medicineman (bhisaj*) would performvarious magio-religious rites.He is called one who shakes(vípra) and one who chants(kayí), suggesting that hisactions involved a sacred danceand the recitations of mantras.He possessed a specialknowledge of the preparationsand uses of medicines,including medicinal herbs or

simples and often water,formulas for the consecrationof which form a good part ofhis magico-religious utterance.There is the indication that thehealer waved or stroked certainplants over the patient in thecourse of his ritualperformance. He is also notedfor his ability to repair bonefractures.

In the medical hymns, we mayisolate both ''magico-religious"

and "empirico-rational"elements of healing. The latterare rarely encountered inisolation, tending to be part ofthe overall magical rite. Themagico-religious techniquesoccur in the treatment of bothinternal and external diseasesand of poisons. In cases ofinternal diseases and poisons,the methods are almostexclusively magical. The mostcommonly employed examples

of apotropaic concepts includedthe use of sympathetic magic,of the rhetorical question, ofonomatopoeic sounds, of theidentifying name, and of theesoteric word or phrase that,when properly uttered,transferred the power from thedemon to the healer. Thedemons commonly weredispelled into the ground orcarried away by birds to placeswhere they could no longer

harm the community. Amuletsor talismans, usually of avegetal origin, were rituallybound to drive off the demonsand as prophylactic measures toprevent further attacks.Likewise, fragrant plantsubstances were burnt toprotect the victim and to makehis environment morefavorable for healing.

Mythology also played asignificant role in the rituals.

Surrounding the auspiciousmedicinal herbs, mythologicalstories about plant divinitieshad the effect of divinizing theparticular herbs and plants to be

employed in the rite and,therefore, of making them evenmore efficacious. Thereverence for these plants wasan integral part of the VedicIndian's medical tradition,giving rise to an elaboratepharmacopoeia, which isevident in all phases of Indianmedicine. The great pains takento collect, describe, and classifythe different types of plants

further indicate the origins ofIndian scientific thought.

In addition to the evidence of asystematic mode of thinking,the Vedic healers showed thatthey were familiar with moreempirical techniques.Understandably, these areencountered most frequently inthe treatment of externaldiseases: a form of surgery,utilizing a reed as a catheter,was performed to relieve urine

retention; lancing and salt wereused in the treatment of certainpustules; wounds werecauterized with causticmedicines and perhaps fire;sand and perhaps also reedswere applied to stop the flow ofblood from a wound andperhaps from the uterus; aresinous exudation was appliedto wounds to prevent bleedingand to aid in the healingprocess; ointments and dyes

were applied to the skin; aspecial plant was used thatevidently promoted the growthof hair; and certain plants mayhave been utilized in a salve orpoultice. Perhaps the mostimportant empirical method ofhealing was the use of water ina type of hydrotherapy. It wasemployed for numerousailments, both internal andexternal, suggesting that it was asignificant therapeutic agent.

The mantra, or magico-religious utterance, was the keycomponent of the healing rite.When properly executed at thedesignated auspicious time andplace, the healer was able tounlock the door to the realm ofthe spirits and obtain the powernecessary to ward off ordestroy disease and to makemedicines efficacious. Only thehealer controlled the mantra, sothat he alone governed the

power to heal. Armed with hisarsenal of mantras and otherweapons of magic he set abouthis task of removing disease.

By the time of the early classicalmedical treatises, dating fromaround the Christian era,magico-religious medicine hadgiven way to a medical systemdominated by ideas moreempirically and rationallybased. A reverence for theolder medical tradition of the

Atharvaveda, nevertheless, wasstill advocated, as expressed inthe following passage from theCaraka Samhita *(Sutrasthara* 30.21):3

Therefore, by the physicianwho has inquired about [whichVeda an ayurvedic*practitioner should follow,verse 20], devotion to theAtharvaveda is ordered fromamong the four [Vedas]:Rgveda*, Samaveda*,Yajurveda, and Atharvaveda.

For it is stated that the sacredknowledge [veda] of the firepriests (atharvans*) is medicalscience because [it]encompasses the giving of gifts(dana*), invoking blessings(svasti), sacrifice to deities(ayana), the offering ofoblations (bali), auspiciousobservances (mangala*), thegiving of burnt offerings(homa), restraint of the mind

(niyama), atonement(prayascitta *), fasting(upavasa*), and the recitationof magico-religious utterances(mantra), etc.;4 and medicalscience is taught for the benefitof long life.

The focus of this study,therefore, will be on theelement of Atharvavedicmedicine that functioned as thefundamental key component in

the ritual, the mantra, and theways it was used in ayurveda*.The sources we shall use areamong the oldest of theayurvedic* treatises: BhelaSamhita*,5Caraka Samhita*(Ca),6 and Susruta* Samhita*(Su).7 The ayurvedic*employment of mantras can begrouped into the followinggeneral categories: (1) thetreatment of swellings ortumors and of wounds and

sores (sotha*, vrana*); (2) thetreatment of poison (visa*); (3)the treatment of mentaldisorders (unmatta,apasmara*); (4) the treatmentof fever (jvara), and (5) thecollection and preparation ofcertain medicines.

Treatment of Swellings orTumors and of Wounds andSores (Sotha*, Vrana*)

The specific swellings or

tumors requiring the use ofmantras are the external(agantu*) types, which havesymptoms opposite to theinnate (nija) swellings. Theybegin by being painful and thenare associated with the windelement. They are treated,according to the CarakaSamhita* (Su* 18.5), withbandages, mantras, antidotes,plasters, and hot-coldcompresses. Similarly, external

wounds or sores, beingopposite to the innate ones, aredistinguished by treatmentsbeginning with mantras,antidotes, plasters, and by theircauses and localization ofsymptoms (CaCi 25.8). It isclear that swellings (sotha*)and wounds (vrana*) wereknown to have the samecharacteristics and, therefore,required very similartreatments, implying that they

were considered to be almostsynonymous. Both terms,sotha* and vrana*, are missingfrom the Atharvaveda (andRgveda*), but parallelexpressions such as vidradhá(abscess), visálpaka (visálpa,cutaneous swelling),8 apacít(rash with pustules), andbalasa* (swelling) arementioned in the earlier texts.The afflictions apacít9 andbalasa*10 have charms

devoted to their removal, givingrise, perhaps, to the use ofmantras in the cure of swellingsor tumors and wounds or soresin early ayurvedic* medicine.

Treatment of Poison (Visa*)

The most significant use ofmantras in ayurveda* is foundin the branch of medicalscience that involvestoxicology, commonly knownas agadatantra. The beginning

of the science can be traced tothe Atharvaveda and to theRgveda*, which contain no lessthat ten hymns devoted to theeradication of poison derivingfrom various sources.11 This isthe part of India's medicalscience that Alexander ofMacedonia found to be themost advanced, as Arrianinforms us (Indica, 15.11-12):

But as many [as were] Greekphysicians, no cure at all hadbeen found by then [for one]who had been bitten by anIndian snake; but in fact Indiansthemselves cured the ones whowere smitten. And in thisconnection, Nearchus says[that] Alexander kept collectedabout himself as many of [the]Indians as were very skilled inthe healing [art], and had madeproclamation throughout his

camp that whoever was bittenshould have recourse to theking's tent. But these same[people] are physicians alsofor other diseases andmisfortunes. 12

The knowledge of poisons,then, was one of the earliestmedical sciences over whichthe Indian physicians gainedmastery. Both in war and intheir general practice, they wereconfronted with cases of

poisoning, which providedample opportunities to testvarious remedies. Conceivingthat such dreadful effects werecaused by different demonicallyinspired creatures or practices,they devised mantras againsteach type. Having classified thevarious types of poisons on thebasis of their vectors, theywould proceed to recite theappropriate magical utterance,while performing a rite that

often included a moretherapeutic approach. This earlytradition of toxicology wasincorporated into ayurveda*,where we find the sameapproach employed to thetreatment of those afflicted bypoison.

In the Caraka Samhita* (Ci23.34-37), mantras arementioned in the list of twenty-four remedies against thepoisons deemed to be curable.

Caraka also teaches a typicalprocedure involving the use ofmantras in the cure of poison(Ci. 23.61):

With [the recitation of]mantras, the binding of the[blood] vessels [is to beperformed], the rubbing down[of the patient]13 is to becarried out and a self-protection [is to beexecuted].14 One must firstconquer that "humor"[dosa*]15 in whose domain

the poison is [situated].

Susruta* explains theacquisition, efficacy and use ofmantras in the cure ofpoisoning from snakebite (Ka5.8-13):

8. And also the oneaccomplished in the mantrashould tie the bandage [i.e.,tourniquet] to theaccompaniment of the mantra;indeed that [tourniquet] bound

by cords, etc., is considered tobe an effective remedy againstthe [spread of] poison.

9. The mantras,16 previouslymentioned by gods,brahmanas*, and sages [andthus] consisting of truth andascetic heat (tapas)17 are nototherwise; they quickly destroythe poison which is difficult [tocure].

10. The poison is checked

quickly by the efficaciousmantras consisting of truth,holy speech (brahman) andascetic heat, not, therefore, bythe medicines employed.

11. The acquisition of themantras is to be made by onewho abstains

from women, meat, and honey,18 who is abstemious in food,who is purified [and] whoreclines on a bed of kusa*-grass.

12. For the purpose of thesuccess of the mantras, oneshould diligently worship thedivinities by [giving] offeringsof perfumes and garlands, byoblations, by muttering [sacred

verses] and by [giving] burntofferings.19

13. But since mantraspronounced without observingthe proper rules or [recited]with the proper accents andsyllables missing, do not attainsuccess, the technique ofantidotes is, therefore, useful.20

In these verses, a dearlymagico-religious attitude, verymuch Atharvavedic in

character, is advocated towardthe healing of snake poison bythe recitation of mantras. Itlooks back to a time when onlythe most primitive techniquesof a tourniquet and mantraswere employed and a priestrather than a physicianperformed the healing. Verse 9refers to "previouslymentioned" mantras. In anAtharvavedic hymn (6.12)against the poison from snakes,

Verse 2 speaks of a similarmantra:

By that [mantra] which wasknown by the brahmanas*, bythe sages and by the gods [and]which was in the past, will bein the future and is now in themouth, I cover your poison.

The last verse (13) is significantbecause it presents a morerational approach, quite likelyof ayurvedic* inspiration:Should the charms fail, the best

resort is to an antidote.

In the case of hydrophobia(jalatrasa*) caused by the biteof a mad dog (alarkvisa*;commentary: unmattakukkura),Susruta* (Ka 7.59cd-62ab)prescribes that the patientshould be bathed with coldwater containing ingredientsconsecrated with mantras at ariver bank or a crossroad andthat an offering should be madewhile reciting the following

mantra:

O Yaksa*, lord of mad-dogs,lord of the race of dogs,quickly makefor me him, afflicted by mad-dogs, without pain.

This ritual recalls magico-religious rites prescribed in theKausika* Sutra*. In Kausika*Sutra* 26.29-32, in a rite forone possessed by demons, apatient is anointed with fragrantpowders and ghee at a

crossroad and sprinkled withwater containing the fragrantpowders while standing in ariver against the current; and inKausika* Sutra* 28.1-4, in arite against poison, obeisance isfirst made to Taksaka*, aserpent-god, and a patient issprinkled with and made todrink fresh water and watercontaining a vegetal medicine.Water also is an effective cureagainst poison in Atharvaveda

6.100.2.21 Although generallyconsidered inauspicious,crossroads are suitable places toundertake healings becausedemons frequently congregatethere.

An interesting chapter in theSusruta * Samhita* (Su* 34)teaches that a king who is aboutto go into battle must beprotected from various kinds ofpoison both by a physican(vaidya) skilled in the essencesof medicines and by a domesticpriest (purohita) versed inmagico-religious speech. Andsince Brahma* (Prajapati*)declared ayurveda* to be a

limb of the Veda (vedanga*),the prudent physician mustconduct himself in accordancewith the judgements of thepriest.

The priest in this healing rite isheld in greater authority thanthe doctor, pointing to theantiquity of the practice.Although religion was stronglyfavored over "science," bothwere required to secure theprotection of the king.

Mantras were also used in thepreparations of antidotes. InCaCi 23.223, water, used totreat one suffering from a falsefear of poisoning, is purified bymeans of magico-religiousutterances. The preparation ofthe antidote, mahagandhihasti*(the elephant with a greatscent), is to be carried outaccording to the followingprescription (CaCi 23.90-94).And while crushing [the

medicine], one should utter thiseffective mantra:

My mother is conquering(jaya*), by name; my father isconquering (jaya),22by name. I, the son ofconquering [masc.] andconquering [fem.] am victory(vijaya) and now I conquer.Obeisance to Purusasimha*, toVisnu*, toVisvakarman*, to Sanatana*, toKrsna*, to Bhava and toVibhava. [I am]23

the radiance of Vrsakapi* [theSun], in person [i.e. in life], theradiance ofBrahma* and Indra, in death.As I do not know the defeat ofVasudeva*(Krsna*), the marriage of amother and the desiccation ofan ocean,therefore, let this antidote besuccessful by this true speech.When the best of all medicinesis ground together [, say]: "OHilinili, protect, svaha*!"24

This antidote, when properlyconsecrated, was so powerfulthat the place where it wasstored was unaffected byAtharvan mantras (of blackmagic), by various demons, bysorcery, or by specters (CaCi23.88).

The religious nature of thismantra is apparent from thereference to various deitieswhose powers the charmerdesires transferred to the

antidote. The recitation of thenonsense word Hilinili reflectsthe esoteric nature of themantra. Speaking this word, thesignificance of which wasknown only to the initiated,imbued the medicine with thepower to protect and to heal.The first part of the mantra isAtharvavedic in character.Variants of the mother-father-son analogy can be found in a

hymn against poison (AV6.16.2), in a hymn for theconsecration of the medicine(silaci *; lac?) (AV 5.5.1,8), ina hymn for the consecration ofsimples (RV 10.97.9), and in ahymn for the consecration ofthe plant kustha* (AV 5.4.8;19.39.3).

Powerful antidotes were alsoused to ward off black magic.

In CaCi 23.59, the antidotemrtasamjivana* is said to beeffective, among other things,against evil mantras andmantras of sorcery.

Treatment of Mental Disorders(Unmada*, Unmatta,Apasmara*)

The recitation of magico-religious speech was both acharacteristic and a treatment ofinsanity (unmada*, unmatta).

Caraka (Ci 9.20) describes apatient suffering from insanitycaused by the demonsbrahmaraksas* as "one, inwhom guffaws and dancingpredominate, [who ischaracterized] by [his] hatred ofand contempt for gods, inspiredmen, and physicians, by [his]recitation of eulogies, ofmantras to the gods and of lawbooks, and by the self-infliction[of pain] with wooden sticks,

etc." Because these actions maycharacterize any holy man orascetic, one must presume thatthe reference is to individualswho imitated the activities andpractices of these religious men.

On the other hand, patientssufferings from insanity arisingfrom lust (rati) and the desirefor worship (abhyarcana) aretreated by a purely magical rite,utilizing mantras, simples,amulets and various sacrifical,

religious, ascetic, andpropitiatory observances (CaNi7.15-16 and Ci 9.23). A similarcure is prescribed for onesuffering from insanity fromexternal causes (agantu*)(CaCi 9.16,23,93-94) andinsanity caused by gods, sages,fathers (i.e., dead ancestors)and Gandharvas (CaCi 9.88-90). Likewise, in the case ofapasmara* (epilepsy) arisingfrom external causes, mantras,

etc., are said to be benficial(CaNi 8.10).

In the Atharvaveda (6.111), twotypes of insanity are implied:the demented state brought onby the patient, as a result of hisinfringement of certain divinemores or taboos (únmadita);and the abnormal mental statecaused by demonic possession(únmatta). In the same hymn,the insane person is describedas having an agitated mind and

talking nonsense. He is curedby propitiating Agni, theApsarases, Indra, and Bhagathrough the recitation of themantra and by the use ofmedicines consecrated with themantra. The term apasmara*does not occur in theAtharvarveda or in theRgveda*.

Treatment of Fever (Jvara)

The ayurvedic* use of mantras

in the treatment of fever isespecially significant as itappears to be found only in theBhelasamhita*, a text that maycontain material earlier than thatfound in either of the two"classical" ayurvedic* treatises,the Caraka- and Susruta-Samhitas*. This unique

explanation occurs in Ci 1.46-51 and is said to be "healing bydivine intervention" (jvaredaivavyapasrayacikitsa *):

46. Fever, arising from theanger of the Great Lord(Siva*), has been previouslymentioned by the great sages.Therefore, for the sake ofliberation from fever, oneshould worship Rsabhadhvaja*

(Siva*).

47. Ritual ablutions,appeasements, burnt offerings,solemn vows, penance,restraint, vegetal oblations,[proper] intentions and thedestroyers of fever(jvaranasana*) mentioned inthe Veda [all] kill [fever].

48. Overlord of disease,extremely powerful, the fever[is] the origin of disease; fatal

to all beings, sublime, the feveris declared [to be] characteristicof fire.

49. Occasional, arising fromevil, [it] should be difficult tocure by physicians; therefore,one should check [it] bymantras proclaimed in the Vedaand by burnt offerings.

50. Fever, therefore, does notenter the man [when theprescribed method of] warding

off fever, which [involves]violent action occurring in [therites of] demonology, isproperly executed by a witchdoctor (bhutavaidya*).

51. Moreover, the ancient cureof fever is to be employed bythe physician who worshipsRudra, who is pure, whopractices asceticism and who isprudent [in his duties].

Statements contained in these

verses suggest very stronglythat the fever (jvara) treated isthe Atharvavedic takmán. InVerse 46, the fever is associatedwith Siva*, the later Hinduname of the Vedic god Rudra,who in the Atharvaveda isinextricably connected with thedemon takmán.25 Likewise,Verse 51 speaks of an ancientcure for fever used by thephysician who worships Rudraand Verse 50 mentions the use

of the magico-religiouspractices of demonology in thetreatment. Verse 47 contains theexpression jvaranasana*(destroyers of fever), which aresaid to be of Vedic origin. Thiscalls to mind the phrasetakmanasanagana* (the group[of Atharvavedic hymns]destructive of takman),mentioned at AtharvavedaParisista* 34.7.26 Similarly,"the mantras proclaimed in the

Veda," in Verse 49, most likelyrefer to the list of AtharvavedaParisista* 34.7. The ayurvedic*explanation of the cause andtreatment of fever (jvara)found in the Bhelasamhita*,therefore, demonstrates a doseconnection with and evenreliance on the more ancient,religiously inspired healingpractices of the Atharvavedaand points to an antiquedoctrine retained in a "classical"

medical treatise.

Collection and Preparation ofMedicines

Mantras also were used duringthe collection of medicines andin the preparation of certainremedies. The collection of theherbs used in an

elixir relating to the removal ofphysical distress(nivrttasantapiyam *rasayanam*) is undertakenaccording to a prescribedmethod (SuCi 30.26-27).Indeed the simples, which havethe appearance of a snake, aresaid to be among the firstseven.27 The uprooting of themis always to be performed withthis mantra:

Certainly for the sake ofauspicious [results], [yousimples] be appeased by theasceticism and by the radiantenergy of Mahendra, of Rama*,of Krsna*, of brahmanas* andof cows.

They are then consecratedaccordingly (SuCi 30.28-30ab).

The inlligent [one] shouldconsecrated precisely all[those simples] with thismantra:

The Somas and those equal toSoma cannot ever be obtainedby peoplewho are unbelieving, indolent,ungrateful and evil doers. Thenectar

drunk but for a small remnantby the gods headed byBrahma*, was placed in [thesesimples], having Soma as theirenergy, and also in Soma,28 theLord of the Simples.29

The first mantra is recited inorder to appease the plants that

were uprooted, suggesting anattitude of "nonviolence"(ahimsa*) toward vegetalmatter. The collection ofmedicinal plants by uprootingoccurs in the Atharvaveda andthe propitiation of them for anyharm done is found in Rgveda*10.97.20 and Vajasaneyi*Samhita* 12.98 and 100.30 Themention of the Vedic plant parexcellence, Soma, in the rite ofconsecration reflects an archaic

attitude, similar to that found inthe Atharvaveda. The plantkustha*, the principal medicineagainst takmán, is madeefficacious by being closelyassociated with Soma atAtharvaveda 19.39.5-8.

Likewise, a cupful of a certainemetic drug is consecrated withthe following mantra (CaKa1.14; slight variant SuSu* 43.3):

May Brahma*, Daksa*, the

Asvin*-twins, Rudra, Indra,Earth, Moon, Wind, Fire, theRsis*, together with themultitudeof healing plants and host ofbeings, protect you. May thismedicine be for you like theelixer of the Rsis*, likethe ambrosia of the gods, andlike the nectar of thebest of the serpents.

In this mantra, the names ofboth Vedic and laterBrahmanic* divinities, as well

as other sacred elements foundin the Veda, are invoked inorder to make the emeticespecially powerful.

Elsewhere, mantras, especiallythose in gayatri* meter, arerecited

while preparing the elixir thatpromotes sexual desire in oldage (ayuskamarasayana *)(SuCi 28.9 and 25); and, as wehave noticed, they are used inthe preparation of certainantidotes.

The use of magico-religiousutterances played a dominantrole in the collection,consecration, and application of

the pharmacopoeia in Vedicmedicine. Every cure required amantra to be recited inconnection with its prescribedremedy. Two rather longhymns (RV 10.97 and AV 8.7)are devoted to medicinal plants.In these hymns, the process ofcollection of the herbs ismentioned, their consecrationdetailed, and their usesprescribed. The comprehensiveknowledge of plants, which the

better ayur* physicians stillpossess, derives directly fromthe early Atharvavedic medicaltradition.

Conclusions

A dependence on the use ofmagico-religious speech ischaracteristic of theAtharvavedic medical tradition.In the Vedic medical rituals, itwas the key component, uponwhich the success or failure of

a particular treatment hinged.The Vedic physician (bhisaj*)recited mantras during aprescribed rite in order to solicitthe healing powers necessary toeffect a cure. The mantras wereuttered primarily to destroy orto drive away the demonicdiseases, to ward off furtherattacks from them, and toconsecrate various medicines.

With the development ofayurveda* around the Christian

era, a quite different approachto medicine began to emerge inIndia. A more rational or"scientific" attitude had all butreplaced the magico-religiousmedical doctrines of theAtharvaveda; and with theserevolutionary ideas, mantrasassumed a subordinate, if notanomalous, place in the medicaltreatments prescribed in theearly ayurvedic* literature. Theexamples mentioned here are

characteristically Atharvavedicand may be considered asrepresenting the final vestigesof that archaic tradition in thenewer medicine of ayurveda*.The diseases treated by mantrasare those that have either exactor very similar parallels in theAtharvaveda. Although thecures using mantras weremagico-religious, one finds thatmore therapeutic or empiricalprocedures also were often

used or advocated. The duty ofreciting the mantras does notalways seem to have been givento the physician (vaidya) but toa priest (purohita) who, incertain cases requiring magico-religious treatment, commandedauthority over the doctor. Heand the physician workedtogether to effect a cure. Thecombining of medical expertisein this way points to the moreancient doctrine, in which

religion and medicine wereinseparable.

It is important to note thatayurvedic* mantras oftenincluded both Vedic and laterBrahmanic* or Hindu names ofdivinities and sacred elements.This points to a consciouseffort to incorporate earlyreligious matter into a latecompilation; thereby sanctifyingthe tradition of medicine.

At all times and in almost everyculture, a connection betweenmedicine and religion isdemonstrable. The belief thatby soliciting divine interventionthrough prayer and ritual nodisease is incurable cuts acrosscultural boundaries. Cases ofmiraculous cures abound inChristianity, especially inCatholicism and in GreekOrthodoxy. Inspired by these

stories and accounts ofsupernatural healingdocumented in religiousliterature of the tradition, eventoday, patients suffering fromseemingly incurable diseases,for whom the best of moderntechnological medicine hasfailed to effect a cure, will seekdivine intervention. Prayervigils, often lasting severaldays, will be undertaken byfriends and relatives at the

patient's bedside and specialservices will be offered. Thehope is that, through theirprayers, the beneficent beingsof the heavenly realm or Godwill be motivated to heal thepatient, to bring him from astate of near death to a healthy,sound condition.

It seems very possible that, incertain cases, the use of mantrasin ayurvedic * medicine serveda similar purpose. More often,

however, it appears thatmantras and the accompanyingmagico-religious healing ritualwere employed because theyreflected the earlier sacredtradition of Vedic medicine.The mantras of Vedic medicineserved as models for themantras of the ayurvedic*tradition. The earlier usage ofmantras corresponded to theirlater medical employment. Themedical authors merely recast

the Vedic mantras according tothe newly emerging tradition ofHinduism.

The ayurvedic* movementaway from magical medicinedearly is illustrated in a passagefrom the Susruta* Samhita*,found in connection with thetreatment of wounds and sores(vrana*) (Ci 1.75b-77a):

75b-76a. Because of [its]establishment in the traditional

precepts (agama*) andlikewise because [it] showsresults,31 this [procedure ofcleaning (by evacuation) andtreatment] is to be used as if itwere a mantra; in no way is it tobe called into question.

76b-77a. And also, by his ownresolution, [the physician] mustdistribute as a remedy thetreatments [which are] amongthe seven beginning with theastringents,32 which have been

previously mentioned by me [inVerses 62-75a].

The author's use of ''as if itwere a mantra" (mantravat) isquite deliberate. It reflects aknowledge of the Atharvavedicuse of mantras in the treatmentof wounds and sores, which wenoticed earlier in the case ofswellings and wounds (sotha*,vrana*). However, he does notadvocate their use in thisinstance; rather, he emphatically

states that the procedure ofcleaning [by evacuation](sodhana*) and treatment(ropana*), outlined in theprevious verses, must beemployed. As a mantra,previously, this healingtechnique, now, is not to bequestioned.

In support of the general thesisof this paper, these versesillustrate

well the early ayurvedic *doctrinal shift from a magico-religious approach to medicineand to a more empirico-rationalone. Later medical evidencedemonstrates that magicalmedicine did not completelyvanish vis-à-vis the developingayurveda*. It was, however,never to gain the status inayurvedic* medicine that itenjoyed in Atharvavedic

medicine.

This examination of the use ofmantras in ayurveda* hasallowed us to look into the partof medicine that is not purelyscientific. It has shown us therole played by magico-religiousmedicine in a traditionalmedical system that wasbecoming dominated by anempirico-rational approach todisease and cure. Being aproduct of a culture whose

peoples' lives are governed by adeeply religious sentiment, it isuniquely Indian, but theunderlying belief in the efficacyof magico-religious speech forhealing transcends the barriersof both time and culture.

Appendix

In the section on children'sdiseases (kumaratantra*) ofthe Susruta* Samhita*, severalchapters are devoted to warding

off nine disease-causingdemons (Utt 27-36).Concluding each of thechapters are verses to be retiredin the course of the overallmagical rite. In no instance arethese metrical passages calledmantras in the text; but thecommentator, Dalhana*, refersto them as "mantras ofprotection" (raksamantra*, orraksa* in abbreviated form).The contents of the verses draw

largely on classical Indianmythology, derived principallyfrom the Mahabharata* andthe Puranas* rather than fromthe Vedic Samhitas*. Parallelscannot be found in theAtharvavedic material,suggesting that their source isfrom a later tradition. Similarly,not being called mantra by theauthor, it is likely that theseverses were not considered tohave originated in the sacred

Vedic texts. No less efficacious,they have become an importantpart of the rites for healingchildren who requiredprotection and favors fromdemonic forces. Theiremployment here furtherdemonstrates that specifictraditions of magico-religiousmedicine were incorporatedinto ayurveda*. In the case ofchildren's diseases, however,the use of mantras cannot be

traced back to Atharvavedicmedicine.

The following is a translation ofthe verses, addressed to thenine deities, all but three ofwhich are female. The sequencebegins with soliciting favorsfrom the nine seizers as a groupand then proceeds to addresseach of the nine deitiesindividually.

The None Seizers (Navagraha)

(Suutt 27)

18-20. While offerings arethrown into the fire, [thefollowing mantra should berecited:]

20b-21. To Agni (fire) and toKrttika*,33 continually say,"svaha*, svaha*." Obeisance tothe god Skanda,34 obeisance tothe Lord of the

seizers. Obediently, I saluteyou. Will you accept myoblation. May you cause mychild to be healthy and withoutdisease.

Skandagraha (Suutt 28)

9. One should wash the childwith water consecrated with thegayatriverse * (RV 3.62.10),and light the sacrifical fire withlibations.

10. Hence I, the protector, thedestroyer of the children's evilshall proclaim [these verses]which are to be made every dayby the indefatigable physician(bhisaj*):

11. Let that eternal god Skanda,who is the receptacle of theascetic heats (tapas), of theradiant heats (tejas), of honorsand of wonderful forms, begracious to you.

12. Let the god, The Lord of theArmy of Seizers, The MightyOne (vibhu), The Lord of theArmy of Gods, the Lord Guha,destroyer of the foes of thegods' army, protect you.

13. Let the one who is theoffspring of all gods [Rudra,commentary], of the Great One,of the Shining One [Agni] andof the Ganga* [Ganges], ofUma* [Parvati*] and ofKrttika*, grant you peace.

14. Let the lord wearing a redgarland and clothes,embellished with red-sandal[paste], the godKrauncasudana* (Enemy ofKraunca*),35 whose divineform is red, protect you.

Skandapasmara* (Suutt 29)

7-8. After making the necessaryoffering to Skandapasmara*,the child should be bathed at acrossroad [and the following

mantra of protection should berecited:]

9. He who is calledSkandapasmara*, the cherishedfriend of Skanda, is also calledVisakha* (branchless,limbless), the one with adeformed face. Let there be thechild's welfare.

Sakuni* (Suutt 30)

9. One should make variousworships (pujas*) to Sakuni*

[and should recite these versesof protection:]

10. Let the Saakuni* [-bird],the goddess who wanders inthe mid-space, who isembellished with alladornments, who has a mouthof iron and a sharp beak, begracious to you.

11. Let the Sakuni* [-bird],who has an awful appearance, agreat body, a large belly,

reddish-brown eyes, pointedears and a terrifying voice, begracious to you.

Revati* (Suutt 31)36

8-9. After performing theproper rites, the physician(bhisaj*) should, at theconfluence [of two rivers],bathe both the female supporter[nurse] and the child [andshould recite the followingmantra of protection:]

10. Let the dark-colouredgoddess Revati *, anointed withunguents, wearing variousgarments, [donning] differentgarlands and [sporting]quivering earrings, be graciousto you.

11. Let the goddess Revati*,Suskanama* (Dry [or Vain], byname),37 whom the goddesswith manifold embellishments

constantly esteems, who islarge, dreadful, and bent over,and who has many children, begracious to you.

Putana* (Suutt 32)38

9. The bathing of the child withwater remaining after religiousablutions is prescribed; thegoddess Putana* is to beworshipped with oblationstogether with gifts [and thefollowing mantra of protection

would be recited:]

10. Let the filthy [impure]goddess Putana*, clothed infilthy [impure] garments, whohas disheveiled hair andrecourse to empty houses [var.,empty gardens], protect thechild.

11. Let the goddess Putana*,who has an awful appearanceand a very bad smell, who isdreadful and black like a rain-

cloud, and who dwells indilapidated39 houses, protectthe child.

Andhaputana* (Suutt 33)

7-8. After making offerings ofraw and cooked meat and ofblood at a crossroad or inside ahouse, the child should bebathed with sacred andefficacious water [and thefollowing verse of protectionshould be recited:]

9. Let the dreadful, tawny, baldgoddess, clad in red garments,Andhaputana*, being pleased,watch over this child.

Sitaputana* (Suutt 34)

7b-8. After making the properoblations, which include foodmade ofmudga,40varuni*-liquor,41 andblood (rudhira), toSitaputana*, the child shouldbe bathed at the bank of a lake

(literally, receptacle of water)42[and the following verse ofprotection should be recited:]

9. Let the goddess, who hasmudga-pap as food and whodrinks liquor and blood, thegoddess Sitaputana*, whoseabode is a lake, protect you.

Mukhamandika* (Suutt 35)

6-8. After having made theappropriate oblations in themiddle of a cow pen

(gosthamadhya*), the bathing[of the child] with waterpurified with the [gayatri-*]mantra43 is prescribed [and thefollowing verse of protectionshould be recited:]

9. Let the decorated, beautiful, auspiciousMukhamandika *, who assumes any shape atwill and who is fond of dwelling in the middleof a cow pen, protect you.

Naigamesa* (Suutt 36)44

10. A bathing [of the child] [with waterconsecrated with the gayatriverse*,commentary] is commanded [to take place]beneath a Banyan tree; one should offeroblations at a Banyan tree on the sixth lunar day(tithi); [and the following verse of protection

should be recited:]11. Let the greatly celebrated, ram-faced, godNaigamesa*, Balapitr* [Children's Father], whohas quivering eyes and brows, and who assumesany shape at will, protect the child.

Abbreviations Used in This Chapter

AVAtharvaveda Samhita* (Saunakiya*recension)

Ca Caraka Samhita*Ci Cikitsasthana*

HKLuise Hilgenberg and Willibald Kirfel,trans., Vagbhata's* Astangahrdaya-

samhita*, Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1941.Ka Kalpasthana*MS Maitrayani* Samhita*Ni Nidanasthana*

P Atharvaveda Samhita* (Paippalada*recension)

RV Rgveda* Samhita*Sa*Sarirasthana*Su Susruta* Samhita*Su*Sutrasthana*TS Taittiriya* Samhita*Utt Uttarasthana*VS Vajasaneyi* Samhita*

Notes

1. The introductory material and otherdiscussions of Vedic medicine in this essayderive from K. G. Zysk, Religious Healing inthe Veda (Philadelphia: American PhilosophicalSociety, 1985), 1-11a. This book includestranslations and annotations of medical hymnsfrom the Rgveda* and the Atharvavedarenderings from the corresponding ritual texts.

2. Maurice Bloomfield, trans., Hymns of theAtharva Veda (1897, reprinted Delhi: MotilalBanarsidass, 1964), 518-19; Cf. M. Bloomfield,

"Contributions to

the Interpretation of theVeda. Fourth Series," AmericanJournal of Philology, 12(1891), 427 n.l; see also K. G.Zysk, Religious Healing in theVeda, 12-102, passim.

3. Compare CaSu * 11.54,where spiritual or magico-religious modes of healing wereconsidered to be one of threetypes of medical treatment:

Cure is threefold: thathaving recourse to thegods (daiva), that havingrecourse to reasoning(yukti), and that whichconquers the spirit(sattva). In that case, thathaving recourse to thegods [includes] therecitation of mantras, theuse of simples, thewearing of amulets,auspicious observances,offering of oblations,presenting of gifts, giving

of burnt offerings,restraint of mind,atonement, fasting,invoking blessings,sacrifice to deities,prostration to gods, andpilgrimages, etc.Moreover, that havingrecourse to reasoning[involves] theapplication of the intakeof food [diet], herbs anddrugs. And, furthermore,the conquering of thespirit [consists of]

restraining the mind fromhostile objects.

4. The commentator,Cakrapanidatta*, states, "Bymeans of this, a certain part ofthe Atharvaveda is thusayurveda* because of [its]single purpose."

5. Bhela Samhita*, edited byV. S. Venkatasubramania Sastriand C. Raja Rajeswara Sarma(New Delhi: Central Council

for Research in IndianMedicine and Homoeopathy,1977).

6. The Caraka Samhita* byAgnivesa*, revised by Carakaand Drdhabala*, with theAyurvedadipika* commentaryof Cakrapanidatta*; edited byJadavaji* Trikamji Acarya*(Bombay: Nirnaya* Sagar*Press, 1941). References to thecommentary or to thecommentator of this text are to

Cakrapanidatta*.

7. Susruta* Samhita* ofSusruta*, with theNibandhasamgraha*commentary of Dalhanacarya*and the Nyayacandrika*Panjika* of Gayadasacarya* onNidanasthana*; edited byJadavji* Trikamji Acarya* andNarayana* Rama* Acarya*"lKavyatirtha*" (Varanasi:Chaukhambha Orientalia, 1980[Jaikrishnadas Ayurveda

Series, 34]). References to thecommentary or to thecommentator of this text are toDalhana*.

8. See AV 9.127.1,3; 9.8.2,20;cf. VS 12.97.

9. See AV 6.25,83; 7.74(78).1,2;7.76(80).1,2.

10. AV 6.14,127.

11. RV 10.191; AV 4.6,7; 5.13;6.12,16,100; 7.56(57), 88(93)

and 107(112).

12. My translation; cf. R. C.Majumdar, ed., The ClassicalAccounts of India (Calcutta:Firma KLM, 1981), 229; and E.I. Robson, trans., Arrian, vol. 2(Cambridge, Mass.: HarvardUniversity Press, 1958), 350-53(Loeb edition).

13. Commentary: "The wipingaway of poison in reversedirection is to be undertaken

with mantras."

14. Commentary: "[The self-protection is] for the purposeof preventing demonicpossession."

15. The dosas * are threefold:wind (vata*, vayu*), bile(pitta), and phlegm (kapha,slesman*). On analogy with theHippocratic and Galenicsystems, they are vitiatingforces in the body.

16. Commentary: "The mantras,beginning with kurukulla* andbherunda* and named in thebest treatises, are here not

mentioned." The wordkurukulla* is obscure. It couldbe from kurukulya*,"belonging to the Kuru race";or, more likely, it is the nameof a deity in Buddhism. Theterm bherunda* is the name ofa goddess, either Kali* orYaksini*. For both words, seeMonier-Williams, A Sanskrit-English Dictionary (1899;reprinted Delhi: MotilalBanarsidass, 1974).

17. "[They are] consisting oftruth by being prescribed by thegods and sages, [and]consisting of ascetic heat bybeing prescribed bybrahmanas* and sages.

18. Commentary: "Both anintoxicating drink and ksudra*-honey are to be avoided."

19. The commentator adds: "'bymeditation' which isunexpressed."

20. Commentary: "Thetechnique of antidotes is properin the case of the failure of themantra due to not following thecorrect procedures or due todefective recitations [i.e.,reciting without proper accents,etc.]." Similarly, evil spirits(bhuta*), not able to beconquered by the offering ofoblations (bali) or by therecitation of mantras presentedin the science of the spirits (i.e.,

demonology) (bhutavidya*),should be treated with medicalprescriptions (yoga) (SuUtt60.36b-37a).

21. Water is often used in thehealing rites of the early Vedaand is usually consecrated withthe following formulaic verse(RV 10.137.6; AV 3.7.5; 6.91.3;P 3.2.7; 5.18.9; and 19.18.9):"The waters [are] indeedmedicinal; the waters [are]amiva*-dispellers; [and] the

waters [are] medicine for every[disease]. [Therefore,] let them[be] medicine for you."

22. Variant reading: "my fatheris victory (vijaya), by name."

23. The names Purusasimha*,Sanatana*, Bhava and Vibhavaare uncertain. Purusasimha*(literally, man-lion) could bethe name of a hero, or it couldrefer to the name of the fifth ofthe black Vasudevas* in

Jainism. Sanatana* (meaningeternal) may refer to "the mind-born son of Brahma*." Bhavaand Vibhava could be"existence" and "evolution,"deified. Bhava is often equatedwith Siva*-Rudra; Vibhava inVaisnavism* is "the evolutionof the Supreme Being intosecondary forms." See Monier-Williams, A Sanskrit-EnglishDictionary. It is dear from thecontext that all the appellations

in this passage refer to names,most likely, of divinities.

24. A variant to these versesoccurs at Astangahrdaya*Samhita*, Utt 35.26cd-30,where the antidote is called,Candrodaya, "Ascent of themoon": While a purified virgin(kanya*) prepares the bestantidote, Candrodaya, thephysician (vaidya), himselfritually pure, should then recitethis mantra:

Obeisance to Purusasimha * andobeisance to Narayana*. Just as onedoes not know the defeat of Krsna*in battle (variant: Just as thatKrsna* does not know defeat inbattle; cf. HK, 686-87), just so, letthe antidote succeed for me by thistrue speech. Obeisance! OVaiduryamata*, O Huluhulu, protectme from all poisons. O Gauri, OGandhari*, O Candali*, OMatangi*, svaha*!

And when it is ground, a second

mantra (is recited):

O Harimayi*, svaha*! (variants: OHari; O Haritamayi*, svaha*!). Certainnames mentioned in this variant aredifficult. Unlike in CaCi 23.90-94, theseappellations are for the most partfeminine: Vaiduryamata* is obscure;Huluhulu, like Hilihili, appears to be anonsense word; Gauri* could refer toParvati*, or, perhaps more likely, it is avariant of Gaudi*, the name of a womanfrom Gaur in central Bengal; Gandhari*refers to a Gandhara* woman, Candali*

a Candala* woman, and Matangi* aCandala* or Kirata* woman. Harimayi*is obscure; but, based on the variantHari, it may refer to Visnu-Krsna*.

25. See in particular AV 6.20.2; 11.2.3(P5.12.7= 13.1.14), 22,26. A similarassociation is only implied at CaCi 3.14and Ni 1.18ff.

26. See M. Bloomfield, ed., TheKausika* Sutra* of the Atharvaveda(1884; rpt. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass,1972), 71 n. 1.

27. These seven should include:ajagari*, svetakapoti*, gonasi*krsnakapoti*, varahi* (Dioscoreabulbifera, Linn), chatra*(=dronapuspi*; Leucas cephalotes,Spreng) and aticchatraka* (?=aticchatrika*=dronapuspi*=chatraI have been able to identify, with thehelp of the nighantus*, only threeplants; the other four are obscure.Although gonasi* is reckoned amongthe first seven, its inclusion is doubtfulbecause the text (verse 12) states that it

has rather the shape of a cow's nose(gonasakrti*). The last in the list of atotal of eighteen plants mentioned inverses 9-25, however, is vegavati*,which is said to resemble a snake's shedskin (sarpanirmokasannibha*).28. Commentary: "in the moon"(candramasi).

29. The commentator introduces thispassage by saying that it speaks of theviews of the ancient, sacred texts; i.e.,the Veda (sruti*).

30. See also Rgvidhana* 3.42.8-4.1.3.

The earliest reference to ahimsaapplied to plants occurs at MS 3.9.3 andTS 6.3.3.2. Cf. Hanns-Peter Schmidt,"The Origin of Ahimsa*," Mélanges d'Indianisme: À la Mèmoire de LouisRenou (Paris: Editions E. de Boccard,1968), 626-55.

31. Commentary: "because it shows astate of nondisease [i.e., health]."

32. The seven, beginning with theastringen.s, constitute the procedure ofcleaning and treatment. Following the

commentary, they are as follows: the useof astringents, of bandgases, of pastes,of clarified butter, of oils, of semi-solidextracts (rasakriya*, cf. CaCi 14.185-192; 26.195), and of powders.33. The commentator to SuUtt 28.13explains that this deity is the wife of theseven Rsis*, enumerated as six. JohnDowson says that they are the Pleiades,the

six nurses of the war-godKarttikeya* and that "they were

daughters of a king according to onelegend, wives of Rsis* according toanother" (A Classical Dictionary ofHindu Mythology and Religion,Geography, History and Literature.London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, Ltd.,1972, 169).

34. This deity is the god of war and theplanet Mars, also called Karttikeya*. Inthe epics, he is the son of Siva* (Rudra)and is said to have been produced whenSiva* cast his seed into fire (Agni),afterwards being received by Ganga*

(the Ganges River). He was raised byKrttika*, has six heads and the nameKarttikeya*. His father is sometimes saidto be Agni (fire); and Ganga* andParvati* are called his mothers. He wasproduced to destroy the evil warriorTaraka*, whose austerities made him animportant foe of the gods. He isrepresented as riding on a peacock,carrying a bow in one hand and anarrow in the other. His wife is Kaumari*(maiden) or Sena* (army). He hasnumerous epithets, including

Mahasena* (whose army is great),Senapati* (lord of the army), Kumara*(child), and Guha, (the mysterious one)(Ibid., 152).35. Kraunca* is said to be a passsituated somewhere in the Himalayas*,which, according to the Vayu*Purana*, was created by Karttikeya's*splitting open Mount Kraunca*. It alsorefers to a confederate of Taraka*,against whom Karttikeya* triumphantlyled the gods (Ibid., 159). Accordingly,the enemy of Kraunca* is Karttikeya*

(so also commentary).36. She was the beautiful daughter ofKing Raivata and the wife of Balarama*.She was known to be very tall.Balarama* reduced her size with the endof a ploughshare and she became hiswife. She is said to have two sons andto have partaken in drinking bouts withher husband (Dowson, A ClassicalDictionary, 266).

37. Commentary glosses asSuskarevati*.

38. She is a female demon and daughter

of Bali, a just, demonic warrior king.She attempted to kill the baby Krsna* bysuckling him, but was sucked to deathby the infant (Dowson, A ClassicalDictionary, 251).39. Reading: bhinnagarasaya*.

40. The word mudga is generallyconsidered to be the name of the plantPhaseolus mungo Linn or green gram.Its seeds are often made into a soup andgiven as the first article of a diet tosomeone recovering from an acute

illness. See G. J. Meulenbeld, TheMadhavanidana* and Its ChiefCommentary, chapters 1-10. (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1974) 590; U. C. Dutt, TheMateria Medica of the Hindus (Calcutta:Madan Gopal Dass, 1922) 150-51; andA. K. Nadkarni and K. M. Nadkarni, K. M. Nadkarni's Indian MateriaMedica, vol. 1 (1908, reprinted Bombay:Popular Prakashan, 1954) 939-40.41. On the one hand varuni* is asynonym for alcoholic beverages(sura*), on the other it is a type of

liquor made from ground punarnava*and sali* rice (see Meulenbeld, TheMadhavanidana*, 515).

42. Commentary: "near a river."

43. Following the commentary;cf. also SuUtt 28.9.

44. In the Mahabharata *,Naigamesa* is the "goat-facedform of Agni." Margaret andJames Stutley also citeCoomaraswamy who describeshim as ante-lope-headed andclaims that he is connected withprocreation in both Hindu and

Jaina mythology (A Dictionaryof Hinduism, London:Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1977,200).

Chapter 5Are Mantras Speech Acts?The Mimamsa * Point ofViewJohn Taberyad grhitam* avijnatam*nigadenaiva sabdyate*, anagnav*iva suskaidho* na taj jvalatikarhicit; (What is merelyvocalized without being

understood, like dry wood withoutfire, never ignites.)Nirukta 1.18

The Mimamsa* is interested inlanguage from the point of view ofperformance, not of competence.J. F. Staal

Recently, several attempts havebeen made to analyze mantrasas speech acts (McDermott1975; Wheelock 1980, 1982;also the contributions by Alperand Wheelock in this volume).

While these studies promiseeventually to make more senseout of mantras in terms of ourown linguistic theory, it stillremains to be seen, for the mostpart, how those who employmantras understand them. Withthis essay, I hope to remedy thesituation somewhat. I shallexamine the treatment of Vedicmantras in the Mimamsa*school of Indian philosophy,which indeed at first sight

appears to be comparable to aspeech act analysis. I shall thengo on to evaluate the range andsuitability of applying theconcept of a speech act toMimamsa* philosophy oflanguage in general. Thisdiscussion, in turn, will haveimplications for the relevanceof that notion for other classicalIndian schools of linguisticthought.

What is a Speech Act?

It should be kept firmly in mindthat to designate a certainlinguistic item a speech act, inthe technical sense developedespecially by Searle,

involves subscribing to ageneral way of viewinglanguage. Speech act theoryclaims that the most fruitfulway to approach linguisticphenomena is to see them asactions; that is, rule-governedbehavior of intelligent agentsfor the achievement of certainends. All utterances are to beviewed in this way insofar asthey are instances of linguistic

communication. From thestandpoint of speech act theoryit is not the case that someinstances of linguisticcommunication are speech acts(say, what J. L. Austin 1961singled out as ''performativeutterances") while others (say,simple assertions) are not. 1

To ask, therefore, whether aparticular linguistic event is aspeech act is tantamount toasking whether anyone means

anything by it; that is, whether itwas produced with an intentionto bring about some reaction orresponse in a reader or hearer,to establish awareness of somestate of affairs, or even to bringa state of affairs intoexistenceas one does when, inthe context of a marriageceremony, one utters the wordsI doand so on. Searle makesthis point with contrastingreference to noises and marks

produced accidentally. Etchingsin stone or noises caused byeroison or the wind may appearto be hieroglyphs or voices, butbecause they are not caused bypersons with certain intentions,they are not instances oflinguistic communication; theyare not speech acts (1969, 16-17).

With this understanding inhand, it appears immediatelysignificant that the concern of

the Mimamsa* philosopherregarding mantrashere and inwhat follows, I take Sabara* asmy principal sourceis whetherthey convey something meantor intended (vivaksitavacana*,MiSuBh* 1.2.31, I.143). This isnot, stricly, a concern aboutwhether mantras aremeaningful.2 For asKumarilabhatta* explains, incommenting on Sabara* (TV,I.143-44), a capacity of words

to express meanings is alwaysascertained. Even in the case ofmantras, their meaning isusually evident as soon as theyare pronounced. They aregrammatical; they make senseof themselves. But, still, when amantra is presented in the Vedaas a formula to be uttered in thecontext of a ritual, one may takeit actually to express what itmeans, or one may not. Onemay simply take it as a noise, a

mere utterance(uccaranamatra*). And so it isappropriately asked, kim*vivaksitavacana* mantra*utavivaksitavacanah*that is,not Are mantras meaningful?but, roughly, Are the meaningsof mantras intended? Aremantras meant? And, thiswould seem to be none otherthan the question Are mantrasinstances of linguisticcommunication? From the

standpoint of speech act theorythe question is Are mantrasspeech acts? (Searle 1971a, 44-45).

The Context of the Discussion

While it is not well known thatpragmatics figures in theMimamsa* treatment ofmantras, some features of thediscussion have been widelynoticed, above all thesuggestion that mantras are

absurd (Strauss 1927a,

121-25; Renou 1960a, 72-75;Staal 1967, 45-46). In thedebate of whether mantras areintended utterances, theMimamsaka * allows hisopponent to support thecontention that they are not, byindicating that, as far as theirliteral meaning goes, somemantras are not the sort ofsentences that possibly could beintended. They speak of things

that do not exist (RV 4.58.3mentions a being with fourhorns, three feet, two heads,and seven hands); they attributepurposes to unconsciousobjects ("O plant, protect thisone!" TS 1.2.1); they are self-contradictory ("Aditi is heaven,Aditi is the atmosphere," RV1.89.10); some of them aresimply incomprehensible ("OIndra, your spear sat firm [?amyak] for us," RV 1.169.3).

Moreover, there are indicationsthat even those mantras thatmake coherent sense areemployed in such a way as tomake that sense irrelevant: Oneis often directed to utter amantra in circumstances towhich its meaning would seemto have already assigned it. (Ishall give an example of thisproblem later.) Theseobjections were not consideredfor the first time by the

Mimamsakas*; most of those Ihave mentioned were airedpreviously by Yaska*, in hisetymological treatise theNirukta (1.15), who attributesthem to a certain Kautsa.3

Although such objections arerightly termed skeptical, itwould be wrong to suggest thatthe follower of Kautsa, aspresented in the Mimamsa*discussion, is a realphilosophical skeptic or even

an unorthodox thinker.4Although he denies the truth ofsome Vedic sentences, hehardly means to challenge theauthority of the Veda in thesense that matters most to theritualist; namely, as a manualfor the performance of thesacrifice. His doubts about theliteral meaning of mantrasultimately concern only howmantras are supposed to beemployed in a sacrificial

context. He does not deny thatthey are to be employed insome way, nor indeed that thesacrifice really delivers thebenefits promised for it.5 Forthe ritualistthat is to say, for theMimamsaka* as well as theKautsanthe validity of the Vedaas a theoretical document isbasically beside the point.6

Let us, however, step back togain a wider perspective on thecontext in which the debate of

the issues raised by Kautsatakes place in Mimamsa*. TheMimamsa*, seen in its mostgeneral aspect, is a system ofrules for interpreting thedirectives for carrying outreligious ritual presented by theBrahmanas* in conjunctionwith the Samhitas*, that is, theVeda proper. (The Srauta-*,Grhya-*, and Dharmasutras*,as smrti* texts, are viewed assecondary in authority to the

Brahmanas*.) The Mimamsa*probably evolved at a timewhen the traditional sacrificiallore was becoming less known.Because it was no longerpossible to rely on a continuingsuccession of specialists whoknew the meaning of theancient textswho knew suchthings as which mantras gowith which procedures, thesequence of ritualperformances, and so

onguidelines had to be fixed formaking sense out of them. Bythe time of the formulation of asutra* text for Mimamsa* (400-200 B.C., attributed to Jaimini[Kane 1930-62, V.1197])however, the old ritual,especially the public rites, hadfallen

largely into disuse and theconsiderations raised begin totake on a rather theoretical tone.A new, more philosophicalor,more precisely,apologeticconcern shows itself.The Mimamsa * is nowannounced as "the investigationinto dharma" (dharmajijnasa*)in general. Sabarasvamin*(200-400 A.D. [Kane 1930-62,V.1197]), one of the first

commentators on the MiSu*,especially emphasizes thesoteriologic importance ofdharma as conducive to the"highest beatitude"(nihsreyasa*, interpreted not asmoksa* but as svarga,"heaven" or "happiness''). Latercommentators, such asKumarilabhatta* (seventhcentury) follow suit. Just as thedevelopment of Vedanta*philosophy can be seen, in part,

as a response to the emergenceof heterodox schools ofsystematic philosophicalthought, so the Mimamsa* ofSabara* and his successors wasprobably partly motivated bythe need to depict Hinduorthopraxis, the intense concernwith ritual still evident in Indiatoday that had always served asan object of ridicule foropposed traditions, as acomprehensive world-view.

Now dharma is defined in theMimamsa* as codanalaksano*'rtha, something useful that is"characterized," or madeknown, according to Sabara*,by a directive (MiSu* 1.1.2).The Veda directs one to carryout religious acts by means ofsuch injunctions as "One whodesires heaven should performthe new- and full-moonsacrifice" (ASS* 3.14.8);7 "Thedaily reading of the Veda

should be recited" (SB*11.5.6.3); and so on. So, theVeda, specifically Vedicinjunction (vidhi), is the propermeans of knowledge(pramana*) as far as dharma isconcerned. The latter, being ofthe nature of a ritualperformance (dharma isequivalent to yaga* forSabara*, MiSuBh* 1.1.2, I.17-18), does not exist in a formalready established, for the

senses to perceive. In that way,it is removed from the sphereof the other chief means ofknowledgeperception,inference, and so ondiscussedin Indian philosophy. Becauseof the exclusiveness of theauthority of injunction withregard to dharma, vigorouslyargued for by Sabara* andothers in extensiveepistemological debate withrepresentatives of other

schools, all portions of theVeda that are to be consideredauthoritative or "useful"(arthavat) in conveyingknowledge of dharma must beshown to relate in one way oranother to what is exhorted tobe done in a ritual context. Thisstipulation immediately poses aproblem for mantras as well asother sentences of the Vediccorpus known as arthavadas*(MiSu* 1.2.1-18).8

An arthavada* (literally, thestatement of a meaning, or of athing, or of a state of affairs) isessentially a eulogy. In TaitSam2.1.1, for example, followingthe declaration that one whodesires prosperity should offerto Vayu* a white animal in theagnisomiya* ritual, one findsthe phrase "Vayu* is theswiftest deity; he approaches[the sacrificer] with his ownshare; he leads him to

prosperity." Now, it is not dearjust how this statementcontributes to knowledge of therite in question. On the face ofit, it has nothing to do with theresult to be effected (sadhya*),nor with the material meanstoachieve it (sadhana*), norwith the procedure(itikartavyata*)

the three standard factors ofany productive activity(bhavana *) according to theMimamsa* schoolall of thesebeing otherwise specified. Thisdoubt regarding the purpose ofan arthavada* is resolved(MiSuBh* 1.2.7) when it is seenthat, even though anarthavada* does not indicateany of the principal factors ofan injoined rite, it gives a

certain force to the injunction.It eulogizes a particular ritual asan effective way of obtaining adesired result, not the resultitself, which is alwaysintrinsically desirable andtherefore requires no eulogy,but this particular way ofachieving it). Thus, it motivatesone to proceed with the ritual.9For the case at hand, the phrase"Vayu is the swiftest deity,"etc., implies that if one carries

out the rite in questionprosperity will arrive withoutdelay. Insofar as an arthavada*helps the effectiveness of aninjunction, then, it contributesto knowledge of dharma.

The problem for mantras isroughly parallel: How do thesentences collected in theSamhitas*, which are assignedto be uttered simultaneouslywith the performance ofsacrificial procedureshymns

(rc*), songs (saman*),muttered formulas(yajus)provide knowledge ofdharma? How are theypramana*? These, too, appearfor the most part simply toexpress states of affairs withoutinstructing one how to carry outanything. In TS 1.1.8, forexample, various formulas aregiven to be uttered whilepreparing rice cakes to beoffered in the new- and full-

moon sacrifice: "I pourtogether," the priest is to say ashe pours water into a dishcontaining freshly gound meal;"For generation I unite you," heshould proclaim as he mixes thewater and meal together. Howdo such formulas teach theofficiant what needs to bedone?

But the question immediatelyarisesand here Kautsa's view isrelevant-Do not mantras in fact

contribute to the sacrifice assubsidiary sacrificial acts inthemselves?10 If so, then onlythe utterance of the syllables isimportant; that by itself wouldbe sufficient to produce abeneficial sacrificial result(apurva*; MiSuBh*, I.150). Infact, some mantras do not seemto have any meaningtheycannot possibly serve to teachanythingwhile some of thosethat do seem not to be intended

to convey their meaning.

The former include nonsensicaland self-contradictory mantras;the latter, those that areassigned in Brahmana*passages to circumstancesapparently implicit in theirmeanings. Thus, TB 3.2.8.4instructs the adhvaryu priest ofthe new- and full-moonsacrifice to utter the mantra"Expanding one, may youspread wide!" as he spreads out

the rice mixture on a dishlikearrangement of heatedpotsherds. But, the verymeaning of the mantra (givenindependently at TaitSam 1.1.8)insofar as it refers to spreading,already suggests that use. Moregenerally, the fact that whenone learns the Veda oneconcentrates solely on thepronunciation of it suggests thatthe meaning of mantras is notimportant, as does the fixed

order of words in mantras (inthe latter regard, see Staal 1967,45-47). In light of theseobjections, the crucialconsideration for

whether mantras constitute apramana * is whether theirmeanings are mean; that is,whether they conveyinformation.

Mantras Are Indicators

The resolution of the questionof the authority of mantrascomes down to seeing that"mantras serve to bring to lightthe subsidiary parts of the

sacrifice as it is beingperformed.... For if the sacrificeand its auxiliaries are not madeknown, the sacrifice cannot becarried out" (MiSuBh* 1.2.32,I.150).11 Neither Sabara* norKumarila* elaborates this idea,but the point seems obviousenough: Mantras indicate, invarious ways, the procedures ofthe sacrifice and the thingsemployed in them.12 Some dothis directly and plainly, in the

form of indicative statements("I cut the grass, the seat of thegods," MS 1.1.2); others do soobliquely, in the form ofpetitions, directives,expressions of hope, and soforth ("May I extend for longthe life of the sacrificer,"TaitSam 1.1.6, pronounced bythe priest as he gazes at hisarms; "Let the wind separateyou,'' TaitSam 1.1.5, mutteredas the grain is winnowed);

others indicate sacrificial detailsstill more symbolically,identifying the elements of thesacrifice with gods and theiraccessories ("On the impulse ofthe god Savitr*, with the armsof the Asvins*, with the handsof Pusan*, I pour thee out,"TaitSam 1.1.6, uttered as thegrain is poured onto amillstone).13 Regardless oftheir form, in almost everycase, mantras allude to what is

going on in the sacrifice as thepriest executes it. Thus, recitedin the proper sequence, theyhelp the priest see what he isdoing and remind him of whathas yet to be done.14 Theyprovide a running narrative ofthe rite. And so, insofar as theypertain to the factor ofitikartavyata* (procedure),they are pramana* with regardto dharma.15 Just as the textsthat lay out the various acts and

the order in which they are tobe performed are pramana*, soare the mantras that, during theactual performance of thoseacts, highlight what is beingdone and signal what comesnext.

But, how do we know thatmantras in fact are indicative(abhidhanasamartha*,MiSuBh* 1.2.31, I.145), thatthey are intended to refer tothings and are not, rather, qua

mere sequences of sounds,ritual performances inthemselves? We know this,Sabara* claims, because "themeaning of words as they occurin the Veda and as they areordinarily employed is thesame. As it is meant in ordinaryusage, so should it be in theVeda" (MiSuBh* 1.2.32,I.150).16 As sentences do notjust have meaning in ordinarylanguage but also are used to

convey meaning (we meanthings by them), so for theVeda. In short, Vedic sentencesare instances of linguisticcommunication.

This claim is introducedwithout explanation inSabara's* argument. It may bemeant merely as a paraphraseof AiB 1.4.9, cited by Yaska* atthe head of his reply to Kautsa:"This indeed is the perfectionof the sacri-

fice, that it is fully formed(rupasamrddham *), i.e., thatwhile the action is being donethe formula (yajus) addresses(abhivadati) it." A morecomplete justification forSabara's* claim will emerge,however, as we proceed toconsider the Mimamsa's*general orientation towardlanguage in what follows. Fornow, in dealing with the issues

raised by Kautsa, it has only tobe noted that the variousmatters brought up whichsuggest that some mantras aremeaningless or that theirmeaning is irrelevant to theiremployment, are mistakenaccording to the Mimamsa*analysis. Apparentlynonsensical mantras can beseen to be coherent, whenappreciated in light of theirfigurative meaning, or as

eulogies (MiSu* 1.2.38, 39); theproblematic assignment ofmantras in certain Brahmana*passages can be seen to haveinjunctive import after all, orelse those passages, too, areeulogies (MiSu* 1.2.33-35); instudying the Veda oneconcentrates on thepronunciation because that ismore difficult, and so on(Renou 1960a, 70-75).

That mantras serve as indicators

(abhidhana*) of ritual states ofaffairs does not mean,however, that they fall only inthe speech act category ofassertions. The Mimamsa*,rather, recognizes many typesof mantra besides outrightdescriptions (akhyana*) andphrases distinguished by theuse of the verb to be (typicallyof the form, "Thou art X [thealtar, the strew, the hair-knot ofVisnu*, etc., as at TS 1.1.11]").

There are dedications (endingin tva*, e.g., TaitSam 1.1.1.1),benedictions, eulogies,lamentations, directives andquestions as well.17 Indeed, theMimamsa*, in its formaldefinition of mantra, MiSu*2.1.32, is careful to specify thata mantra is what expresses(literally, activates) anindication of a ritual element(abhidhanasya* codaka); it isnot the indication itself. That is

to say, mantras implyreferences to ritual details. Assuch, they may have a varietyof shapes; the references can bepackaged in different ways.This approach parallels theinsight of speech act theory thata proposition (more properly, a"propositional act") can beexpressed in speech acts ofdifferent illocutionary force.The proposition "Sam smokeshabitually'' can be expressed in

the simple assertion given, or ina question, "Does Sam smokehabitually?" or in a command,"Sam, smoke habitually!" andso on (Searle 1969, 22-24). Allof these speech acts bring tomind the same state of affairs.Mantras, then, are indicatorsnot strictly as assertions but inthe most general sense; not onlycan they take on varioussyntactic forms, they oftendepend on mythologic and

symbolic associations.

Later, I shall show that thenotion that mantras haveillocutionary force may havearisen originally from certainconsiderations regardinginjunctions.

Mimamsa* Aan Philosophy

Several observations to bemade about the solution of theproblem of mantras presentedby the Mimamsa* will bring out

more fully its signifi-

cance and originality. First, thissolution turns on an olddoctrine, that of the identity ofthe language of the Veda andordinary discourse. This ideawas put forward by Yaska * inhis original refutation ofKautsa: "Mantras havemeaning, since the words [ofthe Veda and ordinary speech]are the same" (Nir. 1.16, p.39).18 It appears in

pratisakhya* and grammaticalliterature in the form of theassumption that accent,morphology, and grammarpertain to Vedic as well asordinary discourse.19 Now theMimamsa* goes somewhatbeyond Yaska* when it says(MiSu* 1.3.30) that the wordsof the Veda and ordinary usagehave the same meanings.Yaska* appears prepared to sayonly that both are meaningful.

But Sabara* would appear toalter Yaska's doctrine stillfurther when he asserts that thewords of the Veda and ordinarylanguage have the samemeanings, not just insofar asthey denote the same things butalso insofar as their meaningsare expressed or intended.20

This emphasis on theexpressiveness of languagemust be understood in thecontext of the fact that, in the

case of mantras, the question ofmeaningfulness is subordinatedto the question of use. At thehead of the discussion ofarthavadas* and mantras, thedoubt concerning theiruselessness, anarthakya*, israised (MiSu* 1.2.1; also1.2.31). This emphasis, too,appears to be an innovation. Inthe Nirukta, the skeptic's thesis,"Mantras are meaningless(anarthakah*)," along with

Yaska's* reply, "Mantras havemeaning (arthavantah*)," doesnot seem to concern anythingother than the establishedmeaning of words. But theMimamsa* sees dearly thatmantras must have meaning tobe conveyed, so as to be able toteach about dharma in the formof expressed assertions. Again,the Mimamsa* has, as it were,an appreciation of the Searleandistinction between the

illocutionary force andpropositional content of aspeech act: A proposition ismeaningful by itself but only if,in addition, it has illocutionaryforce can it conveyinformation.

This point about the function ofmantras as indicators orassertions, however, is in turnsubsidiary to a larger concern towhich I have already drawnattention: whether mantras are

pramana*. One would bemistaken to believe that theMimamsaka* is solelyconcerned with a point aboutlanguage in his discussion ofmantras. Rather, he is also,indeed ultimately, concerned toshow that all the sentences ofthe Veda, the mysteriousformulas contained in theSamhitas* as well as theeulogies and injunctions of theBrahmanas*, convey

knowledge, knowledge ofdharma.21

This interest is the mostrevolutionary aspect of theMimamsa* treatment of themantra issue, for it representsan effort to demystify the Vedaand convert it into a source oftruth. Throughout hisMiSuBh*, not just in hisdiscussion of mantras, Sabara*appears sensitive to a charge ofirrationalism leveled against

Vedic sacrificial science. In thetarkapada*, the openingepistemological discussion ofhis commentary, an opponent isallowed to assert that the Vedapatently contradicts experience,as when it says, "The sacrificerpossessed of offering utensilsimmediately

proceeds to heaven [when hedies]." Manifestly, he goesnowhere; he is completelyburned up on the funeral pyre!(MiSuBh * 1.1.5, 1.41). At1.1.32, it is wondered whetherthe Veda is not completenonsense "like the speech ofchildren and madmen;" for itsays such things as "Trees sat atthe sacrificial session," "The oldbullock sang intoxicating

songs" (p. 103). And, in themany discussions of thefigurative sense of Vedicpassages, the purvapaksin* isalways ready to suggest that theVeda states what is false orincoherent.22

No doubt motivated by anapologetic concern to deal withsuch attacks Sabara* feelscompelled to show that, not justsome, not even most, butgenerally all Vedic sentences

have real epistemic status.23 Indoing so, however, he takes astep away from the moreancient ritualistic attitude, theone expressed in the Vedaitself, which views mantrasuttered in ritual circumstancesas having a sui generis efficacy;i.e., magical power (brahman)(Gonda, 1960-63, 1.32-33).Thus, while the Mimamsaka* isusually seen as a defender ofritualism, he in fact shows

himself to be decidedlyinnovative. It is the Kautsan,rather, for whom the meaningof mantras is irrelevant becausetheir mere utterance counts as amagical ritual act, who standscloser to the ancient point ofview.

The Mimamsa* knew that theclaim of epistemic status for thedirectives (codana*) of theVeda was highly controversial.Sabara* defends this claim with

much ingenuity in thetarkapada*, appealing to astrictly formal notion ofpramana* yielding knowledgewhich is definite in content(nioscita*), independent ofother sources(svayampratyaya*), and whichdoes not deviate (avyatireka) orlater turn out to be false (naviparyeti). But even if Sabara's*defense of codana* is to bejudged successful and the Veda

thus seen as partly rationalized,the latter still does not attain thestatus of metaphysicalknowledge.24 It may tell us thetruth about what to do, but itdoes not tell us about the natureof things. Certainly, thisshortcoming must have been inpart at the basis of thereluctance of other schools toaccept sabda* into the ranks ofpramana*.25

In any case, the Vedanta*the

other school of Indianphilosophy that like theMimamsa*, developed itsdoctrines strictly in connectionwith the interpretation of Vedictextsfelt the need to go furtherand suggest that the Vedaindeed provides reliableinformation about matters offact. Sankara* gives brilliantexpression to this idea in theearly sections of hisBrahmasutrabhasya*, where

he presents the principles of anexegesis quite different fromthat of the Mimamsa*. AtBrSuBh* 1.1.4, he argues thatthe Upanisads* have authorityinsofar as they describebrahman, an accomplishedentity, a thing; they are not to beseen as concerned in any waywith what to do. Butarthavadas* and mantras alsohave the capacity to conveyinformation about states of

affairs (namely, the nature ofdeities connected with thesacrifice), although, of course,they ultimately subserveinjunctions (BrSuBh* 1.3.33,pp. 134-35). With this step, therationalization of the Veda iscomplete. It now exists as abody of dogma to be set besideother scientific and theologicalsystems. Such a view of the

Veda is the logical outcome ofthe apologetic process initiatedby the Mimamsa *.26

There is a final observation tobe made here about theMimamsa* discussion ofmantras. While it reflects afairly sophisticatedunderstanding of thefunctioning of language, as atheory of mantric utterance, it is

woefully inadequate. Thecomplexity and variety ofmantric forms is hardlyexplained by saying that theyserve as reminders. As merereminders, they would do betterwith a simpler structure andthinner content. In Sanskritliterature, a certain class of textsare dearly designed to serve amnemonic function, sutras*,but mantras hardly have thatcharacter. Why should there be

references to gods in mantras?And, why to particular gods insome mantras, to other ones inothers? The Mimamsa* makesonly the lamest effort toaccount for such things,invariably taking references todeities to be merearthavadas*and it does thatonly when forced to. Indeed, itwould seem that the Mimamsa*is not really interested inexplaining mantras at all but

only in eliminating them as apotential source of doubt aboutthe rationality of the Veda. Inlight of this extremereductionism, it is notsurprising that latercommentators on the mantradiscussion (e.g., Sayana*)sought to restore a measure ofthe primacy of theirliteral/figurative content.

Mimasa* And Speech ActTheory

We have seen that theobservation that languageinvolves the expression ofintended meanings (that is,communication) is central tothe Mimamsa* analysis ofmantras. Yet, by itself, that facthardly warrants the conclusionthat the Mimamsa* adopts aspeech act theory of languagesimilar to that of modernlinguistics. In order to be ableto draw such a conclusion, it

must be seen, at least inaddition, that according to theMimamsa* speaking a languageinvolves doing certain things. Ishall show that this idea indeedplays a significant role inMimamsa* exegesis. The fullrelevance of this matter tounderstanding mantras willbecome dear as we proceed.

Before turning to theMimamsa* exegetic method, itwould be well to review the

aspect of speech act theory inquestion here. Speech acttheory, of course, does notfocus so much on the idea thatlanguage is produced byspeakers with certain intentionsas on the notion that languageinvolves carrying out actions.The former idea actually isentailed by the latter; foraccording to the generalphilosophical orientation ofspeech act analysis, it is in the

carrying out of actions thatintentions are expressed andrealized. The heart of speech acttheory is the demonstration ofhow this happens in linguisticcontexts. For Searle, thisdemonstration comes down toshowing that linguisticcommunication consists infollowing what he callsconstitutive rules (1969, 33-42).

A constitutive rule defines whatconstitutes a certain activity. It

implies that, by proceeding asthe rule specifies, one willrealize the activity

it defines. Thus, a constitutiverule creates the possibility of aspecific intention. Thedefinition of a touchdown inAmerican football, for example,as "having possession of theball in the opponents' end zonewhile a play is in progress" is aconstitutive rule. It defineswhat counts as a touchdown atthe same time that it explainswhat one has to do in order to

score a touchdown. The crucialpoint about a constitutive rule isthat, if one wants to achieve theobjective it defines, one mustfollow the rule. If one does notproceed as specified, one willfail. To say that speaking alanguage consists in followingconstitutive rules means inparticular that the requirementsstipulated by the rules must besatisfied for communication totake place.

The way linguistic rules workcan be seen readily in the caseof promising. According toSearle's analysis of this speechact (pp. 57-71), one of theprincipal things one must do inorder to promise is, of course,to utter a sentence of the form,"I promise that I shall. . ." Butthis is not sufficient for apromise to have been made.Certain extralinguisticconditions must hold as well. It

must be the case, for example,that someone has not alreadydoneor that the person who ispromising is not automaticallygoing to dowhat is beingpromised. 27 It also must be thecase that the hearer of thepromise desires that what isproposed should happen.28These sorts of conditions arewhat Searle refers to aspreparatory conditions ofspeech acts.29 For any type of

speech act other conditions,besides these, must be satisfiedif the speech act is to "comeoff." The crucial differencebetween this way of viewinglanguage and most othertheories is that, by speech actanalysis, an utterance isevaluated not just from thestandpoint of whether it ismeaningful or meaningless butalso according to whether it issuccessful or unsuccessful. This

added perspective provesadvantageous in dealing with avariety of linguistic andphilosophical problems. I shallshow that the notion oflanguage as consisting in theperformance of acts accordingto constitutive rules appears tounderlay Mimamsa* exegesis.

We may begin by observing afeature of several of theobjections raised by theKautsan opponent against the

meaningfulness of mantras.Namely, they suggest that if themeaning of mantras wereexpressed then variousinjunctionssome of themoccurring in the Brahmanas*,others mantrasthemselveswould be withouteffect. I have alreadymentioned the case of theBrahmana* passage that directsthe priest to utter a mantra in acontext to which the meaning

of the mantra manifestly assignsit. Other mantras, having theform of directives (calledpraisa* mantras), are to beaddressed to one or another ofthe participants in a sacrificewhile it is going on. Theseappear to be quite purposelesswhen they instruct theparticipant to do what healready knows he is supposedto do. For example, the mantra"O agnidh*, bring out the

fires!" (TaitSam 6.3.1) appearspurposeless when addressed tothe agnidh* priest of theagnistoma* sacrifice, who isfully aware that this (viz.,carrying fire from theagnidhriya* hearth to the otheraltars after the performance ofthe

bahispavarnana * stotra) is hisjob. Therefore, this mantracannot possibly be employed asexpressing what it means(MiSuBh* 1.2.32, I.147).

Now, this sort of argumentwould appear to rest on aninsight into the pragmaticnature of language: Anutterance has to be more thanmerely meaningful in order to

communicate information; italso has to work. That is to say,various extralinguisticconditions have to be met.These conditions will vary fordifferent types of utterance. Forcommands, they include apreparatory condition parallelto that noted for promises, thatthe commandee has not alreadydone and is not automaticallygoing to do what he is directedto do.30 A command that does

not meet this and othercontextual conditions may wellhave inherent meaning, but itfails at what one usually wantsto accomplish in uttering acommand. Its function isfrustrated; it is, as theMimamsa* says, "purposeless"(anarthaka).

Thus, a sensitivity to contextualfactors in the working oflanguage, the very essence ofspeech act theory, is in part

what leads to the questionabout mantras in the first place.It is at the heart of many othermatters as well; for example,the interpretation ofarthavada* passages. Inconsidering in what mannerthese can be regarded aspramana* with respect todharma the purvapaksin* iswilling to entertain thepossibility that some might beinterpreted as injunctions. Thus

the sentence, "He wept(arodit*); Rudra's Rudra-nessis due to his having wept"(TaitSam 1.5.1) could be takento mean that because Rudrawept others should weep, too(MiSuBh* 1.2.1, I.102-103); or,"When the gods sat down at thesacrifice they did not know thedirections" (TaitSam 6.1.5)could be construed as aninstruction that, at the time ofthe sacrifice, others should not

know the difference betweennorth, south, east, and west.The purvapaksin*, however,quickly points out that thesesentences are useless asinjunctions because theyrecommend actions not withinone's voluntary power. No onesheds tears without cause,without separation from whatone wants, or without someaffliction; no one could decideto be confused about the

directions when at thesacrificial session. The generalpoint would seem to be thatsomething is to be regarded aninjunction only when all thecontextual requirements for theperformance of injunctions aremet.31

The Mimamsa* remains withinthis framework in posing itssolution to the problem ofarthavadas*. As we have seen,arthavadas* are regarded in the

final analysis as commendinginjoined actions. Theyencourage the adoption ofspecific ritual procedures bydeclaring them especiallyeffective in bringing aboutdesired goals. Now, Sabara*suggests that one of therequirements for successfulinjoining dictates thisinterpretation of arthavadas*,that there be some advantage inproceeding as injoined. For,

according to the view Sabara*works out, injunctions are lesscommands than requests. Inorder to work, they mustpersuade; the person in-joinedmust be convinced that he willgain some advantage if hecomplies. An arthavada*accompanying an injunctionserves this persuasive

function (MiSuBh * 1.2.7,I.117-19). Thus, in effect,arthavadas* signal thepresence of a more or lessnecessary extralinguisticcondition for successfulinjunctions.32

The notion of contextualrequirements or "needs"(akanksa*) of injunctionsfigures in the Mimamsa*

exegesis in other ways.33According to Mimamsa*, thebringing into existence(bhavana*) expressed by aninjunctive verb always requiresthree factors: something to beeffected (sadhya*), a means(sahana*), and a procedure(itikartavyata*) (AS, p. 3;MiSuBh* 2.1.1, I.375). TheMimamsa* views each of theseas supplying the answer to oneof three specific expectations to

which every injunction givesrise: What ought one bringabout? (kim* bhavayet*) Bywhat (kena) ought one bring itabout? and How (katham)ought one bring it about? Thus,for the injunction, "One whodesires heaven ought to offerthe new- and full-moonsacrifice" (ASS* 3.14.8), thesadhya-requirement* and thesadhana-requirement* aresatisfied by the references to

heaven and thedarsapurnamasa* sacrifice,respectively, and the sentence isto be construed as "One oughtto bring about heaven bymeans of the new-and full-moon sacrifice." Theprocedure-requirement,however, is not immediatelysupplied; but, one gets it fromthe other injunctions, "He offersto the kindling sticks" and soforth, in TaitSam 2.6.1. These

refer to preliminary offerings ofghee, known as prayajas*,made in the course of the new-and full-moon sacrifice(Hillebrandt [1879, 94-97]1880). And so, the completesense of the injunction "Onewho desires heaven ought tooffer the new- and full-moonsacrifice'' becomes "One oughtto bring about heaven by meansof the new- and full-moonsacrifice by carrying out the

prayajas*."

Now, this scheme can be usedto determine the relation ofdifferent sacrificial actsmentioned in the Brahmanas*;that is, it can serve as aguideline for figuring out whichof various acts referred to in atext belong together as onecontinuous rite. This is one ofthe chief exegetic problems theMimamsa* is designed to solve.In fact, one knows that the

prayajas* mentioned atTaitSam 2.6.1 (a Brahmana*section inserted in theSamhita*), go with the new-and full-moon sacrifice, forexample, because they stand inneed of clarification with regardto a certain factor supplied bythe injunction of the new- andfull-moon sacrifice.Specifically, the originalinjunction "One who desiresheaven ought to offer the new-

and full-moon sacrifice"indicates the what that oneeffects by offering to thekindling sticks, and so forth,not specified in the injunctionsof the prayajas*. Because bothinjunctionsor, more precisely,both sets of injunctionsneed theclarification of a certain factor,and each supplies it for theother, one knows that they gotogether, that one action isprimary and the others

subsidiary (the prayajas* aresubsidiary to the new- and full-moon rite) (AS, p. 8).34

Thus, we see that the Mimama*organizes a text, assigningdifferent roles to the sentencesin it, by asking essentially whatcontextual conditions have tobe fulfilled for injunctions towork.35 I mention here one

final aspect of this way ofviewing injunctions. We haveseen that the Mimamsa *beleves that the meanings ofwords in the Veda and inordinary usage must be thesame. Somewhat surprisingly,this belief is based on a purelypragmatic consideration: If themeanings of the words werenot the same, then Vedicsentences could not be

understood by men and Vedicinjunctions could not befollowed (MiSuBh* 1.3.30,I.291). We have here part ofwhat Searle considers the firstcondition of any speech act,that "normal input and outputconditions obtain" (p. 57). Thatmeans, among other things,"that the speaker and hearerboth know how to speak," andtherefore understand, "the samelanguage."

Injunctions And The Eternalityof the Veda

If injunctions are acts carriedout according to certain rules,who carries them out? Whenwe consider this question webecome immediately aware ofan interesting conflict at theheart of Mimamsa* linguistics.

One of the most well knowntheses of Mimamsa*philosophy concerns the

eternality of the Veda: TheVeda is not of human origin(apauruseya*). This idea restson the doctrine of the eternalityof language in general, anothernotion that the Mimamsa*holds in common with otherearly schools of linguisticthought. That is to say, words,meanings, and the associationsof words and meanings do nothave human authors; rather,they are "original" (autpattika,

MiSu* 1.1.5), prior to anyhuman employment. Theabsence of a human origin forthe Veda ensures its perfectvalidity in the eyes of theMimamsa*, hence thecrucialness of this doctrine. TheVeda, simply of itself, causesdharma to be known definitelyand irrevocably. Since it doesnot depend on any suchprecarious source as humanjudgement, how could it be

unreliable, how could what itsays turn out to be false?(MiSuBh* 1.1.5, pp. 41-43).

But granted that the Veda ismeaningful by itself, by virtueof the eternal connectionbetween words and theirmeanings, it still remains to beseen how it conveys itsmeaning. For we have seen thatthe Mimamsa* is sensitive tothe fact that communicationinvolves not just the production

of sentences that possessmeaning (i.e., make sense) butalso the intending of them. Tobe sure, as we also saw, it isdeclared in the discussion ofmantras that the words of theVeda are meant, just as inordinary discourse. But howdoes the Mimamsa* account forthis? It would seem that theintentionality essential forcommunication conflicts withthe idea of an absence of a

human origin for the Veda, forit would seem that only humanbeings can have intentions.

The Mimamsa* solution of thisproblem, worked out for thecase of Vedic injunctions, isone of the most unique aspectsof its theory of languageandone of the most dubious. Wehave observed that Mimamsa*views an injunction asindicating an effective process,a bringing into existence

(bhavana*). Thepronouncement "One whodesires

heaven should sacrifice" meansessentially that one shouldbring about heaven by meansof the sacrifice. But this is onlyhalf of the story. The Mimamsa* actually distinguishes twotypes of bhavana* expressedby injunctive verbs (that is,typically, optatives): One, the"objective bhavana*" (arthi*bhavana*), is "an effort withregard to a certain action

motivated by a particularpurpose"; for example, theeffort of the sacrificer to realizeheaven by the performance ofrites (AS, p. 3). This is the sortof bhavana* we haveconsidered so far. It is said tobe expressed by the"verbalness" (akhyatatva*) ofthe verbal suffix.36 But there isanother, ''verbal bhavana*"(sabdi* bhavana*), which isdefined as "a particular activity

(or effort) of that which incitesone to act [i.e., of theinjunction] which leads aperson to undertake something"(AS, p. 2). The sabdi*bhavana* is said to beexpressed by the "optativeness"(lintva*) of the verbal suffix.The arthi* bhavana* is carriedout by a person, the sabdi*bhavana* by the verb itself.Just as an objective bhavana*entails a certain thing to be

effected, the sadhya*, which isheaven in the example I havebeen discussing, so too theverbal bhavana* has asadhya*, namely the objectivebhavana* (Edgerton 1928,176).

Whatever the validity of thistheory, the gist of it is that, forthe Veda, the act of gettingsomeone to do somethingusually attributed to the uttererof injunctions instead belongs

to the injunctions. In otherwords, Vedic languagemanifests intentions withoutanyone ever having spokenthem; Vedic injunctions arespeech acts without anyoneever having enacted them;Vedic language has inherentillocutionary force!37 It did notgo unnoticed in Mimamsa* thatthis constitutes a certaindifference between Vedic andordinary language; in common

discourse the effort to getsomeone to do something byuttering an injunction resides inthe utterer, a person (AS, p. 2).Still, the basic similaritybetween Vedic and ordinarylanguage is preserved: Both areintentional and so can serve incommunication.

The notion of bhavana*applies to Vedic injunctions.But how do things stand withmantras, which Mimamsa*

emphasizes are not injunctive(MiSuBh* 2.1.31)? Do they,too, have inherent illocutionaryforce? There is, to myknowledge, no suggestion thatthey do. And, as they areactually to be uttered bypersons while rituals are goingon, the need for intrinsicintentionality is less clear intheir case. But, it should benoted that the claim thatmantras express intended

meanings (vivaksitavacana*) isbased on the generalobservation that all language,Vedic as well as ordinary, iscommunicative. Now, sinceMimamsa* regards injunctionsas Vedic language parexcellence (i.e., takes them asparadigmatic), the idea boilsdown to this: Mantras mustexpress intended meaningsbecause injunctions do. And so,while mantras may not have

inherent illocutionary force, asinjunctions do, the view thatthey are intended utterancesseems to reflect a generalconviction that languageconsists in the performance ofspeech acts, for that is broughthome always when, inexegetical discussions,injunctions are analyzed.

Conclusion

In this paper I have tried toshow that the Mimamsa *analysis of mantras reflects anappreciation of language as anintentional activity executedeither by people or, by virtue ofan expressive force inherent inits verbs, by the Veda itself. Inany case, language consists inperformances according to the

Mimamsa*; that is, not juststrings of symbols or sentences,but the appropriate productionor issuance thereof. To be sure,Mimamsa* does not explicitlywork out a theory of speechacts. But the basic elements ofsuch a theory serve as aframework for many of itsdiscussions.

Of interest to the modernlinguist is that Mimamsa*regards intentionality as a

feature of all language. Indeed,most schools of Indianphilosophy consider speaker'smeaning (tatparya*) anessential factor of the meaningof sentences (Kunjunni Raja1969, 176-87). The particularlyintriguing aspect of theMimamsa* view on this matteris that speaker's meaning doesnot overshadow the givenmeaning of words; as we saw,while the meanings of words

are vivaksita*, "intended," theirconnection with the signsreferring to them is still thoughtto be eternal. This way ofviewing the issue contrasts withthat of the Nyaya* school,which believed that a word canmean anything the speakerwants it to (Kunjunni Raja1969, 177). On this point, also,the balanced Mimamsa*approach parallels modernspeech act theory. In Speech

Acts, Searle argues inopposition to Grice thatmeaning what one says dependson what that which one saysactually means in the languageone is speaking (1969, 42-45)."Meaning is more than a matterof conviction, it is also at leastsometimes a matter ofconvention" (p. 45). It may wellbe that further investigation intoMimamsa* philosophy oflanguage will throw new light

on this issue of modernlinguistics, as well as others.

While the Mimamsaka*employs the thesis that alllanguage is expressive to arguethat mantras are meaningful, weshould have no illusions aboutwhere he is going with thisargument. He is not hoping torestore the literal or symbolicsignificance of the Veda.Indeed, he is doing nearly theopposite, reducing the text to a

series of mere references. Mostof the content of the textthereby becomes immaterial.Again, the Mimamsa* attitudehere is best understood incontrast to that of the Nirukta,from which it borrows soextensively. For Yaska*,mantras are meaningful not justas reminders, but, as theBrahmanas* indicate, asmythical/metaphysicalstatements, the correct

understanding of which isessential for the effectiveness ofthe sacrifice (Strauss 1927, 113-14). Yaska* thus hopes to makereal sense out of the Veda bygiving the etymology of Vedicwords. The Mimamsaka* hasgiven up on this; or else, carriedaway by a rationalist impulse,he sees little philosophical gainin trying to interpret mantras.But, he can still maintain thatthey are employed for an

immediate, nonmysticalpurpose, that they are,therefore, in a more importantsense arthavat.

Notes

1. But Wheelock and McDermott have viewedmantras as speech acts chiefly as performatives.Here, we shall consider other ways in which theymight be speech acts.

The following abbreviations have been usedin this article:

AS Arthasamgraha *ASS* Apastambhasrautasutra*BSuBh* Brahmasutrabhasya

MS Maitrayani* SamhitaMiNP* Mimamsanyayaprakasa*MiSu* Mimamsasutra*MiSuBh* Mimamsasutrabhasya*Nir. NiruktaRV Rg* VedaSB* Satapatha* BrahmanaTB Taittirya* BrahmanaTaitSam Taittiriya* SamhitaTV Tantravarttika*

2. This is so, even though the question Domantras express an intended [meaning] or not?

(kim* vivaksitavacana* mantra*utavivaksitavacanah*) is meant to elucidate theissue raised in the purvapaksa* (MiSu* by the expression mantranarthakyam*.Kumarila* indicates a divergence of opinionabout the correct interpretation of thisThose who would see it as raising a doubt aboutwhether mantras are possessed of meaning at all(kim arthavanto mantra* utanarthakah*wrong, he says.3. The concern regarding this issue in the is as follows: If the Veda is without meaning thena science of etymology is unnecessary.

4. Renou (1960a) notes that a pratisakhyaAtharva Veda school is ascribed to a certainKautsa (p. 68). See Strauss 1927a, 120.5. Elsewhere in the MiSuBh* the latter doubt isindeed entertained (e.g., 1.1.5, pp. 39-40) but nothere in the context of the discussion of mantras.

6. Thus, the mention of "the four-horned, three-headed . . . being" presents a problem forSabara* and Kumarila*, it appears, only becauseno such thing exists in relation to the sacrifice[A mantra] should make known an object whichis a factor in the sacrifice. But there are no suchthings as [some mantras] name. . .. There is no

factor of the sacrifice that has four horns, threefeet, two heads, and seven hands" (sadhanabhutah* prakasitavyah*. na ca tadrso*'rtho 'sti yadrsam* abhidadhati. . . . na hicatuhsrngam* tripadam* dvisiraskam*saptahastam* kimcid* yajnasadhanam* asti(MiSuBh* 1.2.31, I.147). Although theMimamsa* puts forward important philosophicaltheses, they typically are required only in order tomake

sense out of the Veda assacrificial science. It argues, forexample, for the existence of aself but, ostensibly, onlybecause some continuity ofpersonal identity is required forthe meaningful prescription ofritual action; for the sameperson who enacts a rite mustbe able to receive the futurebenefit produced by it. I willexplore further the Mimamsa *

attitude toward theoreticalphilosophical issues later.

7. Sabara* sometimes cites theSrautasutras* as if they weresruti*, ignoring the principle,mentioned earlier, that theyhave only secondary authority(Garge 1952, 46). This is thecase particularly for ASS*,which next to TaitSam is thetext most cited by Sabara* (216TaitSam passages are referred toin the Sabarabhasya*

compared to 85 ASS*passages). Moreover, Sabara*often quotes inexactly; ASS*3.14.8 is the passage in the workthat corresponds most closely todarsapurnamasabhyam*svargakamo* yajet. Sabara*evidently relied primarily on hismemory in deliveringquotations; sometimes, hedeliberately rephrased passagesto fit his context; in some cases,he may have had a version of a

text in front of him that is nolonger in existence (Garge 1952,73-74). The paradigm of aVedic injunction for Sabara*,svargakamo* yajeta, isprobably not a citation at all buta purely artificial model.8. I shall not discuss here thedifficulties attached to names(namadheya*), treated atMiSu* 1.4.

9. "Words of eulogy which,praising the action, make it

pleasing [to people], will assistthe performers of the action[hence, indirectly the actionitself]," (stutisabdah*stuvantah* kriyam*prarocayamana*anusthatrnam* upakarisyanti*kriyayah*) (MiSuBh* 1.2.7,I.119).10. This question is not statedexplicitly as such, but it dearlyunderlies the purvapaksa*. SeeAS, p. 17, as well as MiNP*,

sec. 239, where the matter ismore clear.11. (Yajne*yajnangaprakasanam* evaprayojanam. . .. na hyaprakasite* yajne* yajnange*ca yagah* sakyo*'bhinirvartayitum.) TheAnandasrama* Sanskrit text Ihave used includes the wholepurvapaksa* in Sutra* 1.2.31,with the siddhanta* beginningat 1.2.32. I have followed this

numbering rather than that ofJha's translation, which has thepurvapaksa* extending fromSutras* 1.2.31-39. The revisedAnandasrama* edition (by K.V. Abhyanakar and G. S. Joshi,1970-74) also artificially breaksup the purvapaksa* into ninesections.12. Thus, often by means of thedistinctive content (or "mark,"linga*) of the mantra itself onecan determine its assignment.

See AS, pp. 6-7. Reference to asingle sacrificial proceduredistinguishes, along withsyntactic coherence, a particularmantra as a sentence unit(MiSu* 2.1.46).13. For an account of theprocedures that these mantrasaccompany, see Hillebrandt([1879, 36-37] 1880).

14. The mnemonic function ofmantras is viewed as essential inthe later treatise, the

Arthasamgraha*:prayogasamavetarthasmaraka*mantrah*. tesam* ca tad*-

rsarthasmarakatvenaiva * arthavattvarnmemory things connected with some performance. Theirusefulness lies in serving to remind one of such things) (p. 17).Cf. TV 2.1.31, p. 433; also MiSuBh* 6.3.18 and MiNP*, sec. 239.

15. "The knowledge of the meaning of the [mantra] sentence . . .by giving rise to a memory of something to be done in the contextof a ritual action [has the character of] procedure"(vakyarthapratyayah* . . .karmasamavetanusthasyamanarthasmrtiphalatvenetikartavyata*bhavati) (TV, I.150).

16. Avisistas* tu loke prayujyamananam* vede ca padanam*

arthah*. sa yathaiva loke vivaksitas* tathaiva vede 'pi bhaviturnarhati.17. Cf. Yaska's* discussion of rgMimamsa* is content with a rather homogeneous taxonomy. It isinteresting to compare the Mimamsa* scheme with the onerecently worked out by Wheelock (1980). The latter categorizesmantras according to the different sorts of things they present asappropriate to occur at different times in the course of a rite:attitudes (e.g., the wish, "By the sacrifice to the gods for Agni mayI be food-eating"), intentions, requests, and ideal states of affairs(e.g., "I pick you [bundle of grass] up with the arms of Indra").Wheelock's taxonomy, of course, is based on an entirely differentinterpretation of mantric utterance than that given by the

Mimamsa*. The unique feature of mantras, according toWheelock, is that, employed repeatedly in the same situations,they cannot be used for conveying information, which is preciselywhat is insisted by the Mimamsaka*, who believes in the unity ofVedic and ordinary (informative) language. Rather, mantras are"situating speech acts'' for Wheelock, by means of which certainsituations are created (and recreated) and participated in (1982).The mantra "I pick you up with the arms of Indra" is not a simpleassertion but an assertion cum declaration, which for the officiantsimultaneously depicts an ideal state of affairs and realizes it.18. Arthavantah*. [mantrah*] sabdasamanyat*.

19. See the seminal discussion by Thieme (1931). This idea ispronounced as a general thesis, MiSu* 1.3.30. On Sabara's*

relation to the grammarians, see Garge (1952, 236-42). Kane(1930-62, V. 1156-57) notes that Patañjali refers to manyMimamsa* matters in his Mahabhasya*. to determine any relation of priority between the two schools; itseems that they developed at around the same time.20. This, of course, also constitutes a certain interpretation ofJaimini's sutra* (2.1.32).

21. In Sayana's* treatment of mantras, in the introduction to hiscommentary on the Rg* Veda, the expressiveness of mantras andtheir pramanatva* are handled as quite separate issues (Oertel1930, 2).

22. See MiSuBh* 1.2.2, p. 108, where this complaint is raised

about arthavadas*.23. Sabara* concedes, at MiSuBh* 2.1.32, that some mantras, infact, are not assertive, but he may well have felt that that did notjeapordize his general

point. (See also 12.4.1,where it is admitted that themere japa of mantras issometimes called for; cf. AS, p.18, lines 12-14.)

24. The sacrificial science isrationalized in other ways.Thus, Mimamsa * develops thenotion of apurva*, the unseenforce that is the causal linkbetween the sacrificial

performance and its fruition ata later time (see the discussionby Halbfass 1980). It is wellknown that most Mimamsa*authors did not postulate theexistence of god (isvara*); forno such entity is required forthe efficacy of the sacrifice.Somewhat more surprising isthat Sabara* considersreferences to the deities(devatas*) of the sacrifice asmere arthavadas* (Kane 1930-

62, V. 1208).

25. Of course, it was theMimamsa* doctrine of theintrinsic validity (svatah*pramanya*) of cognition, themain pillar of its defense ofsabda*, that drew the most fire.

26. Sayana* works out aninteresting intermediate positionbetween Mimamsa* andVedanta*. While accepting theMimamsa* arguments in favor

of the expressiveness ofmantras, he sees mantras asmaking statements about thedivinities involved in thesacrifice, hence as havingtheoretical import. Theirfunction as reminders is notmentioned. In general, forSayana*, "Mantras have anintended meaning and are to beemployed precisely to conveywhat they mean"(vivaksitartha* mantrah*

svarthaprakasanayaiva*prayoktavyah*) (Oertel 1930,68); while Sabara* maintains"The purpose [of mantras] issimply to make known theelements of the sacrifice"(yajnangaprakasanam* evaprayojanam).

27. To give a homey example,the sort Searle loves, it wouldbe nonsense for me to promisethat I will take out the garbageif you have just done so. This

specific condition for promisesis a slightly broader version ofSearle's condition No. 5.

28. The sentence "I promisethat I shall burn your housedown" is puzzling as a promisefor this reason, although itcould make sense as a threat.This is Searle's condition No. 4(1969, 58).

29. Searle says of preparatoryconditions: "This [type of]

condition is . . . a generalcondition on many differentkinds of illocutionary acts tothe effect that the act must havea point" (p. 59).

30. See the preceding note.

31. Searle, too, stipulates as apreparatory condition forrequests that the requested actmust be within the hearer'spower (p. 66).

32. Here, more or less refers to

the fact that Sabara* admits thatan injunction, even the oneunder consideration, can workwithout an arthavada*. But,when an arthavada* is present,it takes over the persuadingfunction. Kumarila* andPrabhakara* disputed whetherinjunctions are requests orcommands (Kunjunni Raja1969, 160-61).

33. Akanksa* is anotherconcept employed by the

grammarians. For them, it

refers primarily to therelation of dependence betweenwords that form a singlesentence (Kunjunni Raja 1969,151-63).

34. This is the pramana * ofprakarana* (context), one ofsix ways of determining theassignment (viniyoga) ofsacrificial auxiliaries (Jha[1942] 1964, 247-54). Other

pramanas*, such as directassertion (sruti*), may takeprecedence over context whenthey are present but, as theyfrequently are not, context isrelatively important.

35. An injunction, interpretedas a request, will be"felicitous"to use Austin'sexpressiononly if the personsubject to it knows, amongother things, why and how tofollow it. Thus, a request to

someone to turn up the heatmight fail if one asks toospecifically, "Please turn thatlittle knob on the wall to theright"in which case, therequestee may not know whyand so may not be inclined tocomplyor if one asks toogenerally, ''Please make thehouse warmer"in which casethe requestee may simply notknow how to proceed. If thesesorts of conditions are not

satisfied, the injunction/requestwill not "come off," even if as asentence it is perfectly coherent.

36. Cf. Nir. 1.1:bhavapradhanam* akhyatam*.

37. Cf. D'Sa 1980, 177-79.

Translations Cited in ThisChapter

Arthasamgraha* of Laugaksi*Bhaskara*. Ed. and trans. by G.Thibaut. Benares Sanskrit

Series, no. 4. Benares, 1882.

Brahmasutrabhasya* ofSankara* Ed. by Narayan*Ram* Acharya*.Bombay:Nirnaya Sagar Press, 1948.

Mimamsanyayaprakasa* ofApadevi*. Ed. and trans. byFranklin Edgerton. New Haven:Yale University Press, 1929.

Mimamsasutrabhasya* ofSabara*, with theMimamsasutra* and

Kumarilabhatta's*Tantravarttika*. vols. Ed. byV. G. Apate*. Anandasrama*Sanskrit Series, no. 97. Poona,1929-34.

Mimamsasutrabhasya* ofSabara*. Trans. by GanganathaJha. 3 vols. 1933. Reprint.Baroda: University of Baroda,1973.

Nirukta of Yaska* with theNighantu*. Ed. and trans. by

Lakshman Sarup. Lahore:University of the Panjab, 1927.

Taittiriya* Samhita*: The Vedaof the Black Yajur School.Trans. by A. B. Keith. 2 vols.1914. Reprint. Delhi: MotilalBanarsidass, 1967.

Tantravarttika* ofKumarilabhatta*. SeeMimamsasutrabhasya* ofSabara*.

Chapter 6The Meaning and Power ofMantras in Bhartrhari's *Vakyapadiya**

Harold Coward

In his book, The Vision of the VedicPoets, Gonda (1963a) suggeststhat the Vedic rsi*, in hisapproach to the real, is thought

of as having been emptied ofhimself and filled with the god(p. 64). Aurobindo puts it evenmore vividly, "The language ofthe Veda itself is sruti*, arhythm not composed by theintellect but heard, a divineWord that came vibrating out ofthe Infinite to the inneraudience of the man who hadpreviously made himself fit forthe impersonal knowledge"(Aurobindo Ghose 1956, 6).

Therefore, the words (mantras)the rsi* spoke were not hisown, but the words of the god.This suprahuman origin lent hiswords a healing power andeven made them into a deed ofsalvation. It is thisunderstanding of mantra asbeing at once inherentlypowerful and teleological that isso difficult for modem minds tocomprehend. Yet, these are thevery characteristics that

underlie Indian cultic ritual andchant.

In his classic article, "TheIndian Mantra," Gonda pointsout that mantras axe notthought of as products ofdiscursive thought, humanwisdom or poetic phantasy,"but flash-lights of the eternaltruth, seen by those eminentmen who have come intosupersensuous contact with theUnseen" (1963b, 247). By

concentrating one's mind onsuch a mantra, the devoteeinvokes the power inherent inthe divine intuition and sopurifies his consciousness.

Because the mantra isunderstood as putting one indirect touch with divine power(Gonda 1963b, 255), it is notsurprising that mantra chantingis controlled with strict rules.McDermott (1975) hasemphasized that attention must

be given not only to the contentof the mantra but also to itscontext. The reciter of themantra must have met certainprerequi-

*This paper was presented inthe Hinduism section of theannual meeting of theAmerican Academy of Religionin San Francisco onDecember 19-22, 1981.

sites: (1) purgation; (2) propermoral basis; (3) requisitepractical skills; (4) adequateintellectual grounding; and (5)the status of an initiate in anesoteric tradition. Conventionalprocedure requires "that themantra be imparted to thedisciple by one who is dulycertified to do so and who paysmeticulous attention to theminutiae of its proper

transmission" (p. 287). Thecorrect procedures for theactual reciting of the mantra(e.g., sincerity of the utterer,loudness of voice, properbreathing, etc.) are alsocarefully controlled (pp. 288-90).

Recently, Frits Staal argued thatthere is a direct relationshipbetween ritual actions andmantras. He suggested thatmantras began as sentences

attached to ritual actions, andthat these mantra/ritual actionunits were the raw data fromwhich language arose. In India,said Staal, language is notsomething with which youname something; it issomething with which you dosomething (1979c, 9). TheVedic mantra orally handeddown is at least as long as asentence or line of verse thatcorresponds to one ritual act.

Even if the rites are modified orabandoned, the action ofmantra recitation is retained (p.10). Gonda points out that, inpost-Vedic India, activities suchas bringing the goddess Kaliinto a stone image, bathing towash away sins, sowing seedsin the fields, guarding the sownseeds, driving away evil spirits,and meditating to achieverelease all had to beaccompanied by the action of

chanting mantras in order toachieve success (1963b, 261-68).

The question as to whethermantras are meaningful hasproduced much debate. On theone extreme, Vasubandumaintains that the true meaningof mantras is to be found intheir absence of meaning (1969[1958, 216]). Staal draws ourattention to the teaching ofKautsa *, who viewed Vedic

mantras as effective butmeaningless (1969, 508). Thisunderstanding of mantras asmeaningless appears todominate much Tantricthinking.1 The oppositeposition is taken by theMimamsakas*, who argue thatmantras are not meaningless butexpressive of meaning. Sabara*following Jaimini asserts thatmantras express the meaning ofdharma. "In cases where the

meaning is not intelligible, it isnot that there is no meaning; itis there always, only people areignorant of it" (Jha [1942] 1964,162). Much of the modemconfusion over mantras resultsfrom this controversy as to theirinherent meaningfulness ormeaninglessness. The root ofthe problem is the modem viewof language, as commonlyadopted. Whereas, in the Indiantradition, language is thought to

be truly and most fullyexperienced in its oral form, themodem view tends to restrictlanguage to the printed wordand then analyze it for a one-to-one correspondence withobjective reality.2 AsKlostermaier has observed,contemporary linguisticphilosophy sees the word onlyas a carrier of information andbasically studies those aspectsof language that a computer can

store and retrieve (in Coward &Sivaraman 1977, 88).Emphasizing the computerlikefunction of language, modernman tends to consign all otherdimensions of the word to theunreality of a mystic's silence;either the word is factual and

scientific in its referent or it ismystical and has no realfunction in life. 3 Indianspeculations on the nature oflanguage have made room forboth the discursive and theintuitive experience of theword. Bhartrhari*, the fifth-century systematizer of theGrammarian School, presents aphilosophy of language thatproves helpful in understanding

both the factual and theintuitive levels of language.Bhartrhari's* Vakyapadiya*offers a metaphysical,philosophical, andpsychological analysis oflanguage, which spans theperiod from the Vedic throughto the Tantric experience ofmantra. All the views of mantrasummarized earlier (includingmantra as "meaningful" andmantra as "meaningless") are

encompassed by Bhartrhari*within one understanding inwhich language is seen tofunction at various levels.

The Meaning of Mantras

Bhartrhari* begins theVakyapadiya* by stating thatthe essence of Brahman is ofthe nature of the word (sabda*)and the word is understood byBhartrhari* to be synonymouswith meaning. Although unitary

in nature, this divine word-consciousness manifests itselfin the diversity of words thatmake up speech.4 The mantraAUM (the Pranava*) isidentified as the root mantra outof which all other mantras arise(Vak*., I.9). This sacredsyllable is held to have flashedforth into the heart of Brahman,while absorbed in deepmeditation, and to have givenbirth to the Vedas, which

contain all knowledge. ThePranava* and the Vedicmantras are described as beingat once a means of knowledgeand a way of release (moksa*)(Vak*., I.5). Fundamental to allof of this is the notion thatlanguage and consciousness areinextricably intertwined.Vakyapadiya* (I.123) puts itthis way, "There is no cognitionin the world in which the worddoes not figure. All knowledge

is, as it were, intertwined withthe word." Bhartrhari* goes onto make clear that the word-meaning, as the essence ofconsciousness, urges all beingstoward purposeful activity. Ifthe word were absent,everything would be insentient,like a piece of wood (Vak*.,I.126). Thus, Bhartrhari's*describes the Absolute asSabdabrahman* (wordconsciousness).

The Vrtti*, on I.123, goes on tosay that when everything ismerged in to Sabdabrahman*no verbal usage takes place, nomeaning is available throughmantras. But, when the absoluteis awakened and meanings aremanifested through words, thenthe knowledge and power thatis intertwined withconsciousness can be dearlyperceived and known. Becauseconsciousness is of the nature

of word-meaning, theconsciousness of any sentientbeing cannot go beyond or lackword-meaning (Vak*., I.126).When no meaning isunderstood, it is not due to alack of word-meaning inconsciousness but rather toignorance or absent mindednessobscuring the meaninginherently present (Vak*.,II.332). For Bhartrhari*, words,meanings, and consciousness

are eternally connected and,therefore, necessarilysynonymous. If this eternalidentity were to disap-

pear, knowledge andcommunication would cease toexist (Vak *., I.124). T. R. V.Mufti concisely sums upBhartrhari's* position, when hesays it is not that we have athought and then look for aword with which to express itor that we have a lonely wordthat we seek to connect with athought, "Word and thoughtdevelop together, or rather they

are expressions of one deepspiritual impulse to know andto communicate" (1974, 322).

All this has importantimplications for the debate as towhether mantras aremeaningful. A meaninglessmantra would imply a piece ofconsciousness without a word-meaning attached and,according to the Vakyapadiya*,that is impossible. It is possible,however, for a person to be

obstructed by his ownignorance and so notunderstand the meaning of amantraeven thogh the word orwords of the mantra areinherently meaningful. Thatsuch an understanding of word-meaning and consciousnesswas not unique to Bhartrhari*is evidenced by I.24-29 ofPatañjali's Yoga Sutras.5Isvara*, like Sabdabrahman*,is described as an eternal unity

of meaning and consciousnessfrom which all speech evolves.Mantra, as the scriptural truthof the rsis*, is taken to be theauthoritative verbalization ofIsvara's* word-consciousness.All this is expressed in thesacred mantra, AUM, which,when spoken, connotes Isvara*and his omniscientconsciousness. As was the casefor Bhartrhari*, it is theobscuring power of avidya*

(consciousness afflicted byignorance) that robs mantras oftheir inherent meaning andpower (Y.S., I.5).

The reason for the speaking ofmantras is also traced to thenature of word-consciousnessby Bhartrhari*. Vakyapadiya*,I.51, states that word-consciousness itself contains aninner energy (kratu), whichseeks to burst forth intoexpression. "The energy (kratu)

called the word, existing within,as the yolk in the peahen's egg,has an actionlike function andassumes the sequence of itsparts" (Vak*., I.51). In theexperience of the rsis*, thisinner kratu is the cause of theone Veda being manifested bymany mantras (Vak*., I.5). Thersis* see the Veda as a unitarytruth but, for the purpose ofmanifesting that truth to others,allow the word to assume the

forms of the various mantras.On a simple level, this kratu isexperienced when, at themoment of having an insight,we feel ourselves impelled toexpress it, to share it by puttingit into words. Indeed, the wholeactivity of scholarship andteaching (which puts bread onour tables) is dependent uponthis characteristic ofconsciousness.

Unlike thinkers who conceive

of speech in conventional orutilitarian terms,6 Bhartrhari*finds speech to contain andreveal its own telos. And, thatseems to fit exactly the Hinduexperience of mantra. In theVedic experience, mantras notonly reveal meaning but alsogive direction as to how onecan participate in this meaningthrough ritual. This latter aspecthas been given careful analysisby Wade Wheelock. In the

New-and Full-Moon Vedicritual, the role of mantra is toidentify (bandhu) the humanparticipant with a deity and soactualize divine meaning inhuman form (Wheelock 1980,357-58). The Mimamsa* schoolagrees that

through the teaching of Vedicwords participation in thedivine dharma (via the ritualsacrifice) is delineated (Jha[1942] 1964, 156). But, for theMimamsakas *, given a narrowtechnical definition of being an"assertion" and not an"injunction."7 For Bhartrhari*both assertion and injunctionare taken as meaningful, thusthe meaningfulness of all

mantras.

In a recent series ofpublications (1969; 1975a;1975b; 1979a; 1979c), FritsStaal argued that most mantrasare meaningless. With regard tomantras in Vedic ritual, Staalseems to be following the leadof the Mimamsakas* andrestricting the term mantra toassertions occurring within theritual itself. Since, in Staal'sview, ritual activities are self-

contained, self-absorbed, anddo not refer to other realities,the ritual (and its mantra) ismeaningless (1979a, 3).Meaning, for Staal, is obviouslyconceived quite differentlyfrom meaning for Bhartrhari*.It would seem to be the modernpositivist notion of meaning asone-to-one correspondence thatStaal is applying here. Indeed,if meaning can only be in termsof something other and at the

same time consciousness isself-enclosed, as Bhartrhari*maintains, then, of course, thelogical result will be toconclude, as Staal does, thatritual, mantra, and life itselfmay be meaningless (1979a,22). Perhaps, from a modernperspective on Vedic ritual andmantra, that is not anunexpected result. The essenceof Staal's position seems to bethat there was originally a

separation between the realm ofsound and the realm ofmeaning. Mere sound existed asnonsense mantras (e.g.,lullabies, wordless songs, etc.);"Language originated when thedomain of meaning, which washidden, was recognized andattached to the domain ofsound, which was alreadypublicly available" (in Coward& Sivaraman 1977, 10). Staalsuggests that, through the

performance of Vedic ritual, theconnection between the tworealms was made and languagewas born.

Although, at first glance, Staal'sview seems radically opposedto Bhartrhari*, closer analysissuggests some points ofcontact. Staal's hidden meaningis rather like Bhratrahari's*unmanifested meaning-consciousness. The soundsStaal describes may be those

referred to by Bhartrhari* as thesound patterns rememberedfrom word usage in previouslives (samskaras*). ForBhartrhari*, language involvesidentifying these rememberedsound patterns with themeanings inherent inconsciousness. And, forBhartrhari*, it is the Veda andthe natural fitness of a sound toconvey a meaning, madeknown to us through the use of

words by elders (sanketa*), thatmakes the learning of languagepossible.8 Perhaps,Bhartrhari's* thinking hasinfluenced Staal's notion of theorigin of language. Both seemconstructed on some kind ofsuperimposition (adhyasa*)notion. But, the key questionBhartrhari* would put to Staalwould be From whence comesthe impulse to connect soundand meaning? For Bhartrhari*,

the answer is dear. It is kratu,or the expressive energyinherent in meaningconsciousness. Staal's answerdoes not yet seem clear.

The Vakyapadiya * does notremain at the level ofphilosophic principies.Bhartrhari* offers a detailedanalysis of how the utteredsounds of the mantra revealmeaning. Vakyapadiya*, I.52-53, describes three stages in thespeaking and hearing ofmantras on the analogy of apainter:

When a painter wishes to painta figure having parts like that ofa man, he first sees it graduallyin a sequence, then as theobject of a single cognition andthen paints it on a cloth or on awall in a sequence. In the sameway, the word in verbal usageis first perceived in asequence, then cognized as aunity with the sequencesuppressed. This partless andsequenceless mental form issuperimposed, i.e. identifiedwith the previous appearance

having sequence and seemingto be separate. It again entersinto verbal usage by displayingthe characteristics of thesounds, namely, differentiationand sequence, produced by themovements of the articulatoryorgans. In the same way, theword goes again and againthrough three stages and doesnot fail to become bothilluminator and the illuminated.(Vak*., I.52, Vrtti*)

Just as a painting is perceived

as a whole, over and above itsdifferent parts and colors, soour cognition of the mantra isof a meaning whole, over andabove the sequence of utteredsounds. Sphota* (that fromwhich meaning bursts or shinesforth)9 is Bhartrhari's* technicalterm, designating mantra as agestalt or meaning whole,which can be perceived by themind (pratibha*, immediatesupersensuous intuition). Let us

return to the example of thersi*. At the first moment of itsrevelation, the rsi* iscompletely caught up into thisunitary idea, gestalt or sphota*.But when, under the expressiveimpulse (kratu), he starts toexamine the idea (sphota*)with an eye to itscommunication, he haswithdrawn himself from thefirst intimate unity with the ideaor inspiration itself and now

experiences it in a twofoldfashion. On the one hand, thereis the objective meaning(artha), which he is seeking tocommunicate, and on the other,there are the words and phrases(dhvanis) he will utter. ForBhartrhari*, these two aspectsof word sound (dhvani) andword meaning (artha),differentiated in the mind andyet integrated like two sides ofthe same coin, constitute the

sphota*. Bhartrhari*emphasizes the meaningbearing on revelatory functionof this twosided gestalt, thesphota*, which he maintains iseternal and inherent inconsciousness (Vak*., I.23-26,122-23).

From the perspective of aspeaker or hearer of the utteredmantra, the process functions inreverse. Each letter-sound ofthe mantra reveals the whole

sphota*, at first only vaguely.Each additional letter sound ofthe mantra brings furtherillumination until, with theuttering of the last letter sound,the sphota* (the completeutterance as a unity) of themantra stands clearlyperceived10perhaps, somethinglike "the light bulb coming on"image we find in cartoons. Asthe Vakyapadiya* puts it, "Thesounds, while

they manifest the word, leaveimpression-seeds (samskara-bhvana-bija *) progressivelyclearer and conducive to thedear perception of the word"(Vak*., I.84, Vrtti*).

The logic of Bhartrhari's*philosophy of language is thatthe whole is prior to its parts.This results in an ascendinghierarchy of mantra levels.

Individual words are subsumedby the sentence or poeticphrase, the phrase by the Vedicpoem, and so on, until allspeech is identified withBrahman. But Bhartrhari*focuses upon the Vakya-Sphota* or sentence meaningas the true form of meaning.Although he sometimes speaksabout letter sounds (varna*) orindividual words (pada) asmeaning-bearing units

(sphiota*), it is clear that forBhartrhari* the true form of thesphota* is the sentence.11 Thishas interesting implications forsingle-word mantras. Since thefundamental unit of meaning isa complete thought (vakya-sphota*), single words must besingle-word sentences with themissing words beingunderstood. For example, whenthe young child says "mama," itis dear that whole ideas are

being expressed; e.g., "I wantmama!" Even when a word isused merely in the form of asubstantive noun (e.g., tree),the verb to be is alwaysunderstood so that what isindicated is really a completethought (e.g., This is a tree)(Vak*., I.24-26, Vrtti*). In thisfashion, Bhartrhari* suggests away to understand single-wordmantras as meaningful. Adevotee chanting ''Siva" may

well be evoking the meaning"Come Siva" or "Siva possessme" with each repetition(Vak*., II.326). Thus, suchsingle-word mantras are farfrom being meaningless.

Both Wheelock (1980, 358) andGonda (1963b, 272ff.) havepointed out that, in Vedic ritual,mantra is experienced onvarious levels, from the loudchanting of the hotr* to silentlyrehearsed knowledge of the

most esoteric bandhus.Probably, a good amount of theargument over themeaningfulness of mantrasarises from a lack of awarenessof the different levels oflanguage. On one level, there ispratibha* or the intuitiveflashlike understanding of thesentence meaning of the mantraas a whole. At this level, thefullness of intuited meaning isexperienced in the "seen" unity

of artha and dhvani insphota*. This is the directsupersenuous perception of thetruth of the mantra that occursat the mystical level oflanguagewhen mystical isunderstood in its classical senseas a special kind of perceptionmarked by greater clarity thanordinary sense perception.12Bhartrhari* calls this level ofmantra experience pasyanti*(the seeing one);13the full

meaning of the mantra, thereality it has evoked, standsrevealed. This is the rsi's* direct"seeing" of truth, and theTantric devotee's visionaryexperience of the deity. Yet, forthe uninitiated, for the one whohas not yet had the experience,it is precisely this level ofmantra that will appear to benonexistent and meaningless.If, due to one's ignorance, thepasyanti* level is obscured

from "sight" then the uttering ofthe mantra will indeed seem tobe an empty exercise.Bhartrhari* calls the level of theuttered words of the sentence

vaikhari * vak*. At thevaikhari* level, every sound isinherently meaningful in thateach sound attempts to revealthe sphota*.

Repetition of the uttered soundsof the mantra, especially ifspoken clearly and correctly,will evoke afresh the sphota*each time, until finally theobscuring ignorance is purged

and the meaning whole of themantra is seen (pratibha*).Between these two levels ofuttering (vaikhari*) andsupersensuous seeing(pasyanti*), there is a middleor madhyama* vak*corresponding to the vakya-sphota* in its mental separationinto sentence meaning and asequence of manifestingsounds, none of which have yetbeen uttered (Vak*., I.142). For

Bhartrhari*, the silent practiceof mantra is accounted for bymadhyama* and, of course, isboth real and meaningful.

When all three levels oflanguage are taken into account,as they are by Bhartrhari*, itwould seem that all Vedic andTantric types of mantra practicecan be analyzed and shown tobe meaningful. In cases wherethe avidya* of the speaker orthe hearer obstructs the

evocative power of the mantra,it may indeed be experienced asmeaningless. But even then, themantra is still inherentlymeaningful, as is shown when,through repeated practice, thesphota* is finally revealed andby the fact that the culturedperson, not afflicted byavidya*, hears and understandsthe meaning even though theperson uttering the mantra doesnot (Vak*., I.152-54). The

argument, of course, is circularand, if it were merely atheoretical argument,Bhartrhari's* explanation wouldhave no power and would havebeen discarded long ago. TheVakyapadiya* appeals not toargument but to empiricalevidence, the direct perceptionof the meaning whole(sphota*) of the mantra. Aslong as such direct perception isreflected in the experience of

people, Bhartrhari's*explanation of themeaningfulness of mantras willremain viable.

The Power of Mantras

The meaningfulness of mantrasis not merely intellectual, thismeaning has power (sakti*).Mantras have the power toremove ignorance (avidya*),reveal truth (dharma), andrealize release (moksa*).

Vakyapadiya* states it clearly,"Just as making gifts,performing austerities andpractising continence are meansof attaining heaven. It has beensaid: When, by practising theVedas, the vast darkness isremoved, that supreme, bright,imperishable light comes intobeing in this very birth" (I.5,14, Vrtti*).

It is not only this lofty goal offinal release, which is claimed

for the power of words, butalso the very availability ofhuman reasoning. Without thefixed power of words toconvey meaning, inferencebased on words could not takeplace (Vak*., I.137). Because ofthe power inherent in mantrasfor both human inference anddivine truth, great care must begiven to the correct use ofwords. In Vedic practice, theimportance of this mantra

sakti* is recognized in thecareful attention given to

the correct speaking of theVedic verses, so as to avoiddistortions and corruptions(Gonda 1963b, 270). And, asMcDermott observes, in theview of the Tantric, perceptionof mantra as "the sonicreverberation of divine power,it is hardly surprising thatquality control of itscomponents cannot be left tothe caprices of the individual

reciter" (1975, 290).

From Bhartrhari's *perspective, the special role ofgrammar (Vyakarana*) is tocontrol and purify the use ofmantra so that its powers willnot be wasted or misused(Vak*., I.11-12). Propergrammatical usage, correctpronunciation, etc. are crucial,not only for the success of theVedic rituals, but also for allother branches of knowledge

(Vak*., I.14). Whether it be thecommunication of meaningwithin the human sciences orthe identification of ritual actionwith the divine, it is mantrasakti* that enables it all tohappen. As Wheelock notes inhis most recent paper, in bothVedic and Tantric ritual, mantrais the catalyst that allows thesacred potential of the ritualsetting to become a reality.14Especially important in this

regard is the contention ofVakapadiya*, I.62, "It is withthe meanings conveyed bywords that actions areconnected." Were it not for thepower of word meanings, noconnection would be madebetween the ritual action andthe divine, then both the Vedaand the Tantra would bepowerless.

In the Indian experience, therepeated chanting of mantras is

an instrument of power (Gonda1963b, 271). The moredifficulties to be overcome, themore repetitions are needed.Vakyapadiya*, I.14, makesdear that repeated use of correctmantras removes all impurities,purifies all knowledge, andleads to release. Thepsychological mechanisminvolved is described byBhartrhari* as holding thesphota* in place by continued

chanting. Just as from adistance or in semidarkness, ittakes repeated cognitions of anobject to see it correctly, so alsoconcentrated attention on thesphota*, by repeated chantingof the mantra, results insphota* finally being perceivedin all its fullness (Vak*., I.89).Mandana* Misra* describes itas a series of progressivelyclearer impressions, until a dearand correct apprehension takes

place in the end.15 A similarpsychological explanation isoffered by Patañjali in YogaSutra* II.44: As a result ofconcentrated study(svadhyaya*) of mantras(including bija syllables likeAUM) the desired deitybecomes visible. Through thepractice of fixed concentration(samadhi*) upon an object, inthis case an uttered mantra,consciousness is purified of

karmic obstructions and thedeity "seen." Since, forPatañjali, AUM is the mantrafor Isvara*, the devotee isadvised that the japa, orchanting of AUM, will result inthe clear understanding of itsmeaning. Vyasa* puts it inmore psychological terms:

The Yogi who has come toknow well the relation betweenword and meaning mustconstantly repeat it and

habituate the mind to themanifestation therein of itsmeaning. The constantrepetition is to be of thePranava and the habitual mentalmanifestation is to be that ofwhat it signifies, Isvara*. Themind of the Yogi whoconstantly repeats the

Pranava * and habituates themind to the constantmanifestation of the idea itcarries, becomes one-pointed.16

The power of such mantrasamadhi* to induce a perfectlyclear identity with the deity isgiven detailed psychologicalanalysis in Yoga Sutras* I.42.At first, the experience ofidentity with Isvara* is mixed

up with lingering traces of theuttered mantra (AUM) and itsconceptual meaning (artha).With continued mantrasamadhi*, all traces of utteredsounds and conceptual meaningare purged, until only the directperception of Isvara* remains.Patañjali's analysis supportsBhartrhari's* claim that suchmantra samadhi* has the powerto remove ignorance and revealtruth.17 This conclusion

confirms both the Vedic andthe Tantric mantra experience.

Conclusion

Against the background of thelong debate over themeaningfulness ormeaninglessness of mantras,Bhartrhari's* philosophy oflanguage was employed toanalyze the nature of such ritualutterances. The Vakyapadiya*was found to provide a

systematic explanation of theinherent meaningfulness of allmantras, with the apparentmeaninglessness resulting fromthe obscuring function ofignorance. When theVakyapadiya* notion of thethree levels of language wasapplied, objections against themeaningfulness of mantras bythe Mimamsakas* and, morerecently, by Frits Staal wereshown to be overcomeonce

Bhartrhari's* assumptions weregranted. Support was offeredfor the Vakyapadiya*interpretation by adducing aparallel analysis of mantra inPatañjali's Yoga Sutras*. ForBhartrhari*, mantras areinherently meaningful,powerful in purging ignoranceand revealing truth, andeffective instruments for therealization of release (moksa*).Bhartrhari's* Vakyapadiya*

provides a theory of languagethat helps modem mindsunderstand how mantras can beexperienced as meaningful,powerful, and teleological inVedic and Tantric ritual.

Notes

1. Bharati acknowledges thatthis is the view of manyEuropean and Indian scholars,but argues that this is erroneous([1965] 1970, 102).

2. Of course, there areexceptions to this dominantmodem view of language.Witness, for example, MichaelPolanyi's defense of "tacitknowing" as meaningful. FromPolanyi's perspective allknowing involves two things:(1) a deep indwelling orpersonal participation of theknower in the known; (2) ahierarchy of levels of knowingall directed by a controlling

purpose. See M. Polanyi,Knowing and Being (Chicago:University of Chicago Press,1969), pp. 152ff.

3. See, for example, RussellFraser, The Language of Adam(New York: Colurn-

bia University Press, 1977),especially Chapter 4,"Mysticism and ScientificDoom."

4. The Vakyapadiya * ofBhartrhari*, translated by K.A. Subramania lyer (Poona:Deccan College, 1965), I.1;hereafter cited Vak*. See alsoK. Kunjunni Raja (1969, 142)for a dear demonstration of

how far Bhartrhari's* sabda* issynonomous with meaning.

5. The Yoga of Patañjali,translated by J. H. Woods(Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass,1966); hereafter cited Y. S.

6. For example, the earlyBuddhists, the Carvakas*, or inmodern thought, the positivists.

7. The reason given for this isthat "the Mantra can beexpressive of mere assertion,

as it functions only during theperformance of an act . . . if itenjoined the act, its functioningwould come before thecommencement of theperformance." Sabara* Bhasyaas quoted in Jha ([1942] 1964,160).

8. Vak*., III.1.6. ForBhartrhari*, the usage of wordsby elders, and one's learning ofthat usage, is not a humancreation but only a making

present to ourselves of theexisting natural capacity ofwords to convey meaning. Thisis what is meant by the "naturalfitness" (yogyata*, which iseternal and not the work ofman, apauruseya*) in therelation between the wordmeaning and the sounds.

9. For a complete presentationsee Harold Coward Sphota*Theory of Language (Delhi:Motilal Banarsidass, 1980),

Chapter 5.

10. Sphotasiddhi* ofMandana* Misra*, translatedby K. A. Subramania lyer(Poona: Deccan College, 1966),commentary on Karika* 18.See also Vak*., I.82-84.

11. See, especially, the SecondKanda* of the Vakyapadiya*,in which he establishes thevakya-sphota* over against theview of the Mimamsakas*.

12. See W. T. Stace, Mysticismand Philosophy (London:Macmillan, 1961), p. 15. This,of course, is exactly theopposite of the common,modern interpretations given tothe term mystical: e.g., vague,mysterious, foggy, etc.

13. Vak*., I.142. Note that inVrtti*, sounds of cart-ale,drum, and flute are all forms ofVaikhari* Vak* and, therefore,potentially meaningful.

14. Wade Wheelock, "TheMantra in Vedic and TantricRitual," unpublished paper, p.19.

15. Sphotasiddhi* ofMandana* Misra*, translatedby K. A. Subramania lyer,Karikas* 19-20.

16. Bhasya* on Y.S. I.28 asrendered by Rama Prasada(Delhi: Oriental Reprint, 1978),p. 51.

17. In using the Yoga Sutra* asa parallel and supportinganalysis, it must beremembered that ultimatelysignificant differences exist:The Vayapadiya* offers

an absolutism of wordconsciousness orSabdabrahman while the Yogasystem is ultimately a dualitybetween pure consciousness(purusa *) and nonintelligentmatter (prakrti*).Consequently, Vacaspati pointsout that Isvara's* sattva doesnot possess the power ofconsciousness, since sattva isnonintelligent in its own nature

(Y.S., I.24, tika*). Since theconcern in this essay is not withthe ultimate nature of themetaphysics involved, thediscussion has proceeded as ifthe sattva aspect of prakrti*indeed were real consciousness.This is in accord with the Yogaview of the nature ofpsychological processes. Thesattva aspect of citta, insofar asit is clear, takes on or reflectsthe intelligence (caitanva*) of

purusa*. For practicalpurposes, therefore, no dualityappears, and prakrti* may betreated as self-illuminating (seetika* on Y.S., I.17).

Chapter 7Mantras in the Sivapurana *Ludo Rocher

Even though the Sivapurana*HAD to compete with theVayupurana* for a place in thelist of eighteen mahapuranas*and even though it, therefore,was often relegated to the rank

of an upapurana*,1 it isnevertheless one of the moreextensive, and least uniform,Puranic* texts. According to anumber of passages in thePurana* itself, theSivapurana* originallyconsisted of twelve samhitas*.The printed editions, however,contain far fewer than that. Oneset of editions,2 is composed ofsix samhitas*: Jnana-*,Vidyesvara-*, Kailasa-*,

Sanatkumara-*, Vayu-* orVayaviya-*, and Dharma-.This article is based on asecond, very different set ofeditions,3 with sevensamhitas*. The text of theSivapurana* in these editions iscomposed as follows:

1. Vidyesvarasmamhita* (orVighnesasamhita*) (25chapters)

2. Rudrasamhita*

2.1 Srstikhanda* (20chapters)

2.2 Satikhanda* (43chapters)

2.3 Parvatikhanda* (55chapters)

2.4 Kumarakhanda* (20chapters)

2.5 Yuddhakhanda* (59chapters)

3. Satarudrasamhita* (42

chapters)

4. Kotirudrasamhita* (43chapters)

5. Umasamhita* (orAumasamhita*) (51chapters)

6. Kailasasamhita* (23chapters)

7. Vayusamhita* (orVayaviyasamhita*)

7.1 Purvabhaga* (35

chapters)

7.2 Uttarabhaha* (51chapters)

This text of the Sivapurana*,therefore, is composed of 467chapters. References in thisarticle will consist of three orfour figures: samhita*,occasionally its subdivision(khanda* or bhaga*), chapter(adhyaya*), and verse.

Mantras 4both in general: themantra or the mantras, andspecifically definedareomnipresent in theSivapurana*. The text itself5says that it contains "streams ofmantras." It claims to put orderin the mantras, for "as long asthe Sivapurana* will not makeits appearance on earth, mantraswill be in discord."6 In themetaphorical description of the

chariot that Visvakarman*prepared for Indra in view ofthe destruction of the Tripuras,the mantras are said to be thetinkling bells.7 On the occasionof the mahatmya* of theMahakala* jyotirlinga* (4, ch.17), the Sivapurana* tells thestory of a young boy, the son ofa cowherdand the ancestor ofNanda (4.17.68)who became adevotee of Siva* and whosucceeded in performing

sivapuja* "even withoutmantras" (4.17.66: amantrena*API). This was, however, theexception: Under normalcircumstances ''worshiping Harais not possible without the useof mantras."8 "For Siva*worship fully to yield thedesired result it shall beaccompanied by mantras."9

The Sivapurana* occasionallyrefers to mantras for gods otherthan Siva*. It recognizes

worship of different gods "eachwith their own, respectivemantras" (1.14.23:tattanmantrena*) andmentions "reciting mantras andperforming other forms ofworship to one's istadeva*(1.14.27: japadyam*istadevasya*). When Dambha,the son of Vipracitti, didpenance in Puskara* to have ason, he firmly recited theKrsnamantia* (2.5.27.12:

krsnamantram* jajapa*drdham*). Elsewhere, the textannounces a mantra to the Sun(6.6.38: mantram* savitram*sarvasiddham . . .bhuktimuktipradam) anddevotes two upajati* stanzas toit (6.6.39-40):

sindhuravarnaya*sumandalaya* namo 'stuvajrabharanaya* tubhyam /padmabhanetraya*supankajaya*

brahmendranarayanakaranaya*//saraktacurnam*sasuvarnatoyam*srakkunkumadhyam* sakusam*sapuspam* /pradattam adaya*sahemapatram* prasastam*arghyam* bhagavan prasida* //

In general, however, theSivapurana* is, for obviousreasons, concerned withmantras for Siva*. Quite oftenthe mantra is not further

specified. For instance,Andhaka, the son ofHiranyaksa*, daily offers a partof his body in the firesamantrakam (2.5.44.6).Anasuya* fashions a clay imageof Siva* mantrena* (4.3.17).When Rama* praises Siva* heis said to bemantradhyanaparayana*(4.31.31). Occasionally, the textrefers to rudrajapa withoutindicating the mantra that is the

object of the recitation.10 Thereare good reasons to presumethat, when a mantra for Siva*remains unspecified, theSivapurana* means to refer tothe pranava*.11 The pranava*,indeed, is the mantra that ismost prominent throughout thetext; it is mentioned more oftenthan any other mantra, and it isthe mantra that has beendiscussed in the greatestdetail.12

The Sivapurana * engages inseveral etymologies of the termpranava*, which are of interestinsofar as they throw light onthe composers' views on thenature and purpose of themantra. For instance, pranava*is the best of boats (nava) tocross the ocean; i.e. thesamsara* evolved out ofprakrti* (pra).13 Or, pranava*means that there is no (na)

diffusivehess (pra) for you(va).14 Or, pranava* is socalled because it is the ideal(pra) guide (na) to moksa* foryou (va).15 Or, pranava* is theideal way (pra) to eliminate allkarma of those who recite andworship it, deliver them frommaya*, and provide them withnew (nava) divine wisdom, i.e.make them into new (nava)purified personalities.16Elsewhere, it is said to be the

prana* of all living beings, allthe way from Brahma* down toimmobile objects.17

The Sivapurana* distinguishestwo forms of pranava*: thesubtle (suksma*) and the gross(sthula*). The former ismonosyllabic (ekaksara*), thelatter consists of five syllables(pancaksara*).18 In reality,they both contain five syllables(arna*), but in the latter theseare "apparent, manifested"

(vyakta), in the former they arenot (avyakta).19 The subtlepranava* is again subdividedinto two. The long (dirgha*)subtle pranava* consisting of a+ u + m + bindu + nada*,resides in the heart of yogins.The short (hrasva) subtlepranava* consists only of thesound m, which representsthree things: Siva*, his Sakti*,and their union. It should berecited by those who desire to

expiate all their sins.20 Thegross pranava*, in fivesyllables, is composed ofSiva's* name, in the dativecase, preceded by the wordnamah*; namah*sivaya*.21Another passage(1.11.42-43) makes a furtherdistinction in connection withthis formula: namah* shouldprecede only in the case ofbrahmansor dvijas generally(?)whereas it should follow

after sivaya* in all other cases;this also includes women withthe exception, according tosome, of brahman women.

Given its twofold, or threefold,subdivision, it is not alwaysclear to which form ofpranava* the text refers when ituses the term.22 Only rarelydoes it make a clear distinction,as it does when it prescribesOM* to erect a linga* on apitha*, but the

pancaksaramantra* to preparea Siva* image (vera) for afestival (1.11.16, 18). However,even though thepancaksaramantra* is referredto as the mantrarat* (6.3.8)and occasionally is praised asthe ne plus ultra23 and eventhough the Purana* devotesthree chapters (7.2. Ch. 12-14)to pancaksaramahatmya*, thereare numerous indications in thetext that the pranava* par

excellence is OM*.24

The components of OM* arereferred to in the Purana* in avariety of contexts and for avariety of reasons. For instance,each of the three lines of thetripundra* mark is presidedover by nine deities. They are(1.24.89-94):

for the first line: the sound a(akara*), the garhapatya* fire,the earth (bhu*), dharma(Kalagnirudropanisad*:

svatma*), rajas, Rgveda*,kriyasakti*, pratah* savana,and Mahadeva*;

for the second line: the sound u(ukara*), the daksina* fire,nabhas,

antaratma *, sattva,Yajurveda, icchasakti*,madhyandinasavana, andMahesvara*;

for the third line: the sound m(makara*), the ahavaniya*fire, dyaus, paramatma*,tamas, Samaveda*,jnanasakti*, trtiyam*savanam, and Siva*.

In the discussion of varioustypes of lingas*, the first,

subtle linga* is identified withthe suksma* pranava*; i.e.,OM*.25 In addition to this,there are many gross lingas*,of which the suta* proposes todeal only with those made ofclay. These are five in number:svayambhu*, bindu,pratisthita*, cara, and guru(1.18.31). The text identifiesthese with nada*, bindu,makara*, ukara*, and akara*of OM*, respectively.26

The Sivapurana* also providesspecial rules on how to reciteOM*. According to onepassage, OM* is to be recitedmentally (manasa*) in case ofsamadhi*, in a low voice(upamsu*) at all other times.27Elsewhere, it is said that,according to the experts on theAgamas*, mental japa is thehighest form of recitation,upamsu* japa the middlemostform, and verbal (vacika*) japa

the lowest (7.2.14.24). In fact,upamsu* japa is one hundredtimes as efficient as vacika*japa, manasa* japa onethousand times, and sagarbhajapa, i.e., japa accompanied bypranayama* (7.2.14.30), againone hundred times more(7.2.14.29); finally, sadhyana*japa is one thousand timesbetter than sagarbha japa(7.2.14.33).28

As we saw earlier, the sthula*

pranava* consists of fivesyllables: Siva's* name in thedative preceded, andoccasionally followed, bynamah*. It is most commonlyreferred to as thepancaksaramantra*, rarely,more shortly, as pancaksara*or, with a variant,pancavarna.*29 Occasionally,the Sivapurana* speaks ofsadaksaramantra* rather thanpancaksaramantra*.30 This is

described as "thepancaksaravidya* to which thepranava* is added,"31 or, moredetailed, as "the mantra withSiva's* name in the dative case,preceded by OM* and followedby namah*."32 Even though itis not given a specific name, thesadaksaramantra* occasionallyis further expanded into sevensyllables. Parvati's* adoptedson Sundarsana* performedthe samkalpapuja* sixteen

times with the mantra om*namah* srisivaya*33On oneoccasion, Visnu* advises thegods and the sages to recite aneven longer sivamantra*,34 asfollows: om* namah sivaya*subham* subham* kuru kurusivaya* namah* om*.35 Exceptfor the simplesivanamamantras*, which willbe discussed later, variants onthe pancaksara-* orsadaksaramantra* with other

names than Siva* are rare. Onesuch exception is the advice byVasistha* to Samdhya* to recitethe mantra: om* namah*sankaraya* om*.36

Several passages in theSivapurana* place the recitationof mantras (i.e., sivamantras*)in a broader context andevaluate their merit incomparison with other forms ofworship. To be sure, in thosesections devoted to

mantramahatmya*, therecitation of mantras in generaland of the pancaksaramantra*or sadaksaramantra* inparticular is extolled as superiorto any other form of Siva*worship. Even a singleutterance of the five-syllablemantra is ten million (koti*, seelater) times better than any formof tapas, ritual, or vrata.37 Or,the pancaksaramantra* iscompared to a

sutra *"it is a vidhi, not anarthavadas*" (7.2.12.21)onwhich all other mantras andevery other means of knowingSiva* are merecommentaries.38 It is like theseed of a banyan tree; howeversmall in itself, it has anenormous potential and is thesource of every form ofwisdom.39

In other contexts, however, weare presented with different andmore balanced views.According to one passage(1.15.57), the recitation ofmantras and stotras constitutes"verbal ritual" (vacikam*yajanam), as against "physicalritual" (kayikam* yajanam),which is characteristic ofpilgrimages, vratas, etc. Othertexts, aimed more directly atSiva* worship, list mantras as

one element of it, together withwearing sacred ashes andlinga* worship.40 As to therelative value of these and otherelements of Siva* worship, theSivapurana* informs us that,the ultimate goal being moksa*,wearing rudraksas* realizesone quarter of it, wearing ashesone half, reciting mantras threequarters; only worshiping thelinga* and Siva's* devoteesrealizes everything.41 In a

chapter on tapas, in whichtapas is proclaimed to be thesole way to reach one's goals(5.20.9), japa is said to be apart of sattvikatapas*(5.20.11,15);42 it is the domainof the gods and yatinam*urdhvaretasam*, and bringsabout all desired results(asesaphalasadhana*).

On one occasion, the recitationof mantras (mantroccarana*),together with dhyana* and

astangabhusparsana*, is a formof vandana, one of the nineangas* of bhakti.43 An evenmore subordinate role isassigned to the recitation ofmantras in the story of thevaisya* Supriya who, while inprison, taught (4.29.45) hisfellow-prisoners the Siva*mantra and idol worship. Theleader himself worshiped theidol,44 some engaged indhyana* or manasi* puja*;45

only those who did not knowbetter recited the mantranamah* sivaya*46

One passage insists thatwearing the rudraksas* withoutreciting mantras is not onlyusless but leads to residence ina terrible hell for the durationof fourteen Indras.47 On theother hand, he who wears thetripundra* automaticallypossesses all the mantras.48Reciting mantras is one of the

things, together with dhyana*,etc., that is useless without thetripundra*.49 Yet, mantrashave to be used when one isunable to smear (uddhulana*)on the entire body; he shall thenapply the tripundra* on thehead with namah* sivaya*, onthe sides with isabhydm*namah*., on the forearms withbijabhyam* namah*, on thelower part of the body withpitrbhyam* namah*, on the

upper part with umesabhyam*namah*, and on the back andthe back of the head withbhimaya* namah* (1.24.113-116).

One important aspect of mantrarecitation, which is stressedagain and again in theSivapurana*, is the benefit ofmultiple repetition (avrtti*).During his penance, Arjunastands on one foot,concentrates his gaze on the

sun, and "continuously repeats"(avartayan* sthitah*)50 thefive-syllable mantra (3.39.2).

The benefit to be derived froma mantra increases in directproportion to the number oftimes it is recited. One passageenumerates the increasingbenefits of themrtyumjayamantra*, from onelakh of repetitions

up to one million. 51 Similarly,when a mantra is recited byway of expiation, the numberof its repetitions required isproportionate to the seriousnessof the sin one has committed:for omitting a samdhya* forone day the text prescribes onehundred gayatris*, onehundred thousand for omittingit for up to ten days; if oneneglects it for one month even

the gayatri* is insufficient, andone has to undergo a newupanayana (1.13.30-31).

A figure mentioned quite oftenfor the repetition of mantras isone or more kotis* "one crore,ten million." After repeatingone koti* times the mantra om*namah* sivaya* subham* kurukuru sivaya* namah.* om,Siva* is supposed to do whathe is requested to do (2.5.7.26:sivah* karyam* karisyati*)52

By repeating thepancaksaramantra* one, two,three, or four koti* times onereaches "the worlds ofBrahma*, etc.," but five kotis*render the devotee equal toSiva*.53

Another figure presecribed forthe repetition of mantras is108.54 More specifically, duringthe sivaratri* the mantra shallbe repeated 108 times during itsfirst three-hour period (yama*);

this number shall be doubledduring the second yama*,quadrupled during the third,and eight times 108 mantrasshall be recited in the fourth.55Occasionally, the number 108 isreplaced by its variant, 1008.When the suta* sits down withthe sages he recites the five-syllable mantra 1008 times.56

The text also indicates the wayin which the number of mantrasought to be counted, using

different kinds of objects tokeep track of the units, tens,hundreds, etc., up to kotis*.57

The Sivapurana* follows thegeneral pattern that "themantras relating to godsrepresent their essencethey arein a sense identifiable withthem."58 Throughout the textthe Sivapurana* expresses in avariety of ways the idea thatSiva* IS the pranava* or thatthe pranava* IS Siva*.

Visnu* addresses Siva*:omkaras* tvam (2.2.41.14);Brahma* pays homage toSiva*: omkaraya* namastubhyam (2.5.11.14). In a longeulogy to show that Siva* issuperior in every category, thegods list the fact that among thebijamantras* he is thepranava* (2.5.2.43: pranavo*bijamantranam*). Any devoteeshould realize that Siva* isidentical with the pranava*

(6.6.29: pranavam* ca sivam*vadet). Siva* himself declaresthe pranava* to be madrupam*(6.3.3), and Arjuna takes onunequaled splendor mantrena*madrupena* (3.38.1). Siva* isomkraramayam*...pancaksaramayam* devam*.saakaksaramayam* tatha*:(6.7.62-63); he ispranavatama* (6.12.20) orpranavatmaka* (6.9.23); he issabdabrahmatanu*

(2.1.8.13.41); etc.

The pranava* is, however, notalways identical to Siva*.Occasionally, Siva* is said tobe pranavartha* "thesignificandum of thepranava*."59 The same ideacan also be expressed indifferent forms: Siva* is said tobe vacya*, the pranava* beingvacaka*;60 or the pranava* isabhidhana* Siva* beingabhidheya.61

According to one passage omissued from Siva*: "Om wasborn from Siva's* mouths. Thesound a first came out of hisnorthern mouth, u from hiswestern mouth, m from hissouthern mouth; the bindu nextcame

from his eastern mouth, and thenada * from his central mouth.The result of this fivefold'gaping' (vijrmbhita*) was thenmade into one in the form ofthe single syllable om" (1.10.16-19).

The Sivamantra* is secret;Siva* alone knows it.62Therefore, it is only naturalthat, as announced by the suta*

early in the Purana*,63 Siva*himself revealed it to the Devi*in the Kailasasamhita* (6.3.1sqq.). Siva* also taught themantra to Brahma* and Visnu*(1.10.25-26)and advised themto recite it "to acquireknowledge of him."64

More generally, Siva* revealsthe pranavartha* to those withwhom he is pleased.65 One ofthose who enjoyed thisprivilege was the suta*; when

the sages inquire with himabout pranavasya*mahatmyam*, he responds thathe indeed knowns it sivasya*krpayaiva*.66 The reason whythe suta* happens to be a"fortunate devotee" (dhanyah*sivabhaktah*) is explainedelsewhere in the text: Siva* isthe pranavartha*; the Vedaswere issued from the pranava*;the Puranas* expound themeaning of the Vedas; and the

suta* is the supremepauranika*.67

Sivamantras* have to belearned through theintermediary of a guru(2.1.13.73-74:gurupadistamargena*); themantra is gurudatta.68 As aresult, a disciple is his guru'smantraputra. The mantra is thesemen springing from theguru's tongue (the penis) anddeposited in the disciple's ear

(the yoni). The natural fatherbrings his son into thesamsara*; the bodhakah* pita*helps him out of it(samtarayati* samsarat*).69The acqusition of a mantrainvolves an initiation,mantradiksa*.70 One passage(7.2.14.1-23), in which theinitiation is referred to aspurascarana* (v. 16; cf. v. 18:paurascaranika*), describes ingreat detail the entire

procedure, from the time oneapproaches a teacher up to theacquisition and recitation of themantra.

The Sivapurana*, however,also provides for theeventuality that no mantra was"given" by a teacher: in thatcase the gurudattamantra maybe replaced bynamamantras*.71 Siva's*name, rather names, is veryprominent in the Sivapurana*.

The text contains a chapter (4,Chapter 35) enumerating a littleover one thousand names ofSiva*(sivasahasranamavarnanam*),followed by another chapter(Chapter 36) enumerating thebenefits of its recitation,including one hundred timesover by kings in distress(4.36.22). On some occasions,the Purana* a rather vaguelyprescribes the recitation of

"multiple namamantras*"(4.13.46: namamantran*anekams* ca). Thenamamantra* to be recited as asubstitute for thegurudattamantra, however,also can be more precise; itconsists in the recitation ofeight names of Siva*, in thedative case, preceded by sri*:sribhavaya* srisarvaya*srirudradya* Sripasupataye*sryugraya* srimahate*

sribhimaya* srisanaya*(4.38.53-55).

The Sivapurana* alsocomposes its ownSivamantras*. On severaloccasions, the text introducespassages saving that one should"invite" or "pray to" Siva*"with the followingmantra(s)."72 Eventually, these"mantras" contain nothing morethan the formula om* namas tefollowed by a series of names

or attributes of Siva*, in thedative case.73 It is clear

that, in these instances, thedividing line between aSivamantra * and aSivastotra*many passages areso introduced in thePurana*has become vague, ifnot inexistent. In one case, thetext explicitly says, "Let thewise pray to Siva*, praisinghim with the followingmantra."74

Yet, whatever otherSivamantras*, and mantras toother gods, there may be, as Iindicated earlier, theSivapurana* leaves no doubtthat the pranava* reignssupreme.75 In the passagequoted earlier, in whichmantras generally are describedas the bells of Siva's* chariot,only the pranava* is singledout for a different and specialfunction: It serves Brahma*,

who is the charioteer, as hiswhip.76 In fact, it is soimportant that even Siva's*residence on the summit ofMount Kailasa* ispranavakara* "in the form ofthe pranava*" (1.6.23)77

It goes without saying that therecitation of Sivamantras* isbeneficial. He who recitesSiva's* name is considered tobe versed in the Vedas,virtuous, wealthy, and wise

(1.23.25), is able to see Siva*and obtains a son equal instrength to himself.78 His facebecones a purifying tirtha* thaterases all sins; even one wholooks at him gains the samebenefit as if he were to visit atirtha*.79 More specifically,since Siva* is identical with themantra, the recitation ofSivamantras* results inbringing Siva* into one'sbody.80 Siva* being the

pranavartha*, too, the sameresult obtains by listening to theexplanation of theSivamantra.*.81

A most interesting result ofreciting Sivamantras* pertainsto brahman women, ksatriyas*,vaisyas*, and even sudras*.Sivamantras* are apt todrastically change theirstatuspresumably in a futureexistence, even though the textdoes not say so explicitly. If a

brahman woman learns thepancaksaramantra* from aguru and recites it 500,000times, she obtains longevity; byreciting it another 500,000 timesshe becomes a man and,eventually, attains liberation. Byreciting the mantra 500,000times, the ksatriya* sheds offhis ksatriya-hood*, and another500,000 recitations make himinto a brahman, therebyopening the possibility of

liberation. If a vaisya* recitestwice 500,000 mantras hebecomes a mantraksatriya*,and, via the same amount ofrecitations made once more, amantrabrahmana*. In the sameway the sudra* attainsmantravipratva and becomes asuddho* dvijah* by reciting themantra 2,500,000 times.82Elsewhere in the text, we aretold that even an outcaste, if hebecomes a Siva* devotee, will

be liberated by reciting the five-syllable mantra.83

I now turn to anotherimportant, omnipresent featureof the Sivapurana*: its relationto the Vedas generally and toVedic mantras in particular. Imentioned earlier that theVedas "arose from thepranava*" (6.1.17).84 Hence,they also arose from Siva*himself; both he and the mantraare described as vedadi*.85

Similarly, the pranava* isvedasara*,vedantasarasarvasva*, etc.86 Itis also described asatharvasirasa*,87 and even asany other Vedic mantra, it hasan rsi*, Brahma*; a chandas,gayatra*; and a devata*,Siva*88

Vedic mantras in general arereferred to repeatedly in theSivapurana*.89Siva* himselfchants samans* (2.5.46.21).

The gods bring Ganesa*

back to life by sprinkling wateron him while recitingvedamantras (2.4.17.54-55).The jatakarma * of Grhapati*,an incarnation of Siva*, isperformed by Brahma*"reciting the smrti* and hailinghim with blessings from thefour Vedas" (3.14.25-26). AfterSiva's* penis fell off in theDevadaruvana*, a pot had tobe addressed "with Vedic

mantras."90 Tat tvam asi is saidto be Siva's* own mahavakya*(2.1.8.49).

One text is mentionedspecifically and by title. Thetripundra* mark has to be puton the foreheadJabalakoktamantrena*(1.13.21).91 More explicitly,members of all varnas* andasramas* shall apply thetripundra* "with seven mantrasfrom the Jabalopanisad*,

starting with 'Agni.'"92 Theseven mantras referred to hereappear in the first chapter of theBhasmajabalopanisad*: agniriti bhasma vdyur* iti bhasmajalam iti bhasma sthalam itibhasma vyometi bhasma deva*bhasma rsayo* bhasma. ThePurana* again refers to thesame Upanisad* on the subjectof the sivavratas*: They arenumerous, but ten of them areparticularly important, "as

taught by the experts on theJabalasruti*."93

One mantra, a* vo rajanam*, isexplicitly identified as an rc*.94It corresponds to RV* 4.3.1:

a* vo rajanam* adhvarasyarudram* hotaram* satyayajam*rodasyoh* /agnim* pura* tanayitnoracittad* dhiranyarupam* avasekrnudhvam*.

We, therefore, may assume95

that the other two mantrasquoted in the same context alsoare considered to be rcs*. Theyare, to invoke Visnu*, pra tadvisnuh*; i.e., RV* 1.154.296

pra tad visnuh* stavateviryena* mrgo* na bhimah*kucaro giristhah* /yasyorusu* trisu* vikramesv*adhiksiyanti* bhuvanani*visva*,

and, to call on Brahma*,hiranyagarbhah*

samavartata; i.e.RV*10.121.1:97

hiranyagarbhah*samavartatagre* bhutasya*jatah* patir eka asit* /sa dadhara* prthivim* dyam*utemam* kasmai devaya*havisa* vidhema.

It should, however, be notedthat the Sivapurana* alsoclaims as rcs* mantras that donot occur in the Rgveda*;98 inthis case the term rc* seems to

alternate freely with mantra.

At one point, in the descriptionof sradddha*, the text indicatesthat the ritual, and hence themantras to be recited in thecourse of it, may be performed"according to the individual'sown grhyasutra*."99

Some of the more important"Vedic" mantras quoted in theSiva*-

purana * without reference to a source orwithout a generic term can best be treated andidentified individually, in alphabetical order.

Aghoramantra100

Referred to in connection with the applicationof the tripundra*101 and waring therudraksa*102

Sole103 occurrences: MS 2.9.10; TA* 10.45.;MahaU* 17.3 (# #282-283):

aghorebhyo 'tha aghoraghoratarebhyah*

ghorebhyo /sarvatah* sarvah*sarvebhyo

namas te rudrarupebhyah*.

The text also refers to ashes asaghorastrabhimantrita*, which Upamanyuuses in an effort to kill Indra; at Siva's* request,Nandi intercepts the aghorastra* in flight(3.32.40-43).

Isanah*104 Sarvavidyanam*

Siva* claims that "the mantras isanahsarvavidyanam*, etc." issued from him.

mantra establishes Siva* as the "maker" and''lord" of the Vedas.106 It is also referred to inconnection with the tripundra*107rudraksa*. 108Sole occurrences: TA* 10.47.1; MahaU* 17.5 (##285-286); NpU 1.6: isanah* sarvavidyanamisvarah* sarvabhutanam* brahmadhipatir*brahmano* 'dhipatir brahma* sivo* me astusa eva sadasiva* om.

Cananam* Tva*

This pratika*, quoted to invite Ganesa*may refer to the well-known invocation of

Ganesa*, which appears for the first time in theRgveda* (RV* 2.23.1), addressed there toBrhaspati*, and has been repeated throughoutVedic literature:

gananam* tva* ganapatim* havamahe* kavim*kavinam* upamasravastamam* /jyestharajam* brahmanam* brahmanaspata* a*nah* srnvann* utibhih* sida* sadanam.*.

However, in view of the fact that this stanza isabsent from TA* and MahaU*, the gananam* tva* in the Sivapurana* may refer,rather, to a mantra that appears in VtU 1.5:

gananam* tva* gananatham* surendram* kavim*

kavinam* atimedhavigraham /jyestharajam* vrsabham* ketum ekam a* nah*srnvann* utibhih* sida* sasvat.*.

Gayatri *

When the text alludes to "reciting the (1.24.43: gayatrijapena*... muktir bhavet;1.13.26,30), it is not always dear whether the referenceis to the rgvedic* gayatri* (RV* 3.62.10) or to thesivagayatri*, to which there are also explicitreferences (1.20.19: rudragayatri*sankarim*). The latter is known from TA* 10.1onward:

tat purusaya* vidmahemahadevaya*dhimahi* /

tan no rudrah*pracodayat*.

A "sixteen-syllable" gayatri*111an abbreviated form of this. At least once, theSivapurana* has Skanda invoked with askandagayatri*,112 which is known solely from theMahaU* (3.5 is #75):

tat purusaya* vidmahe mahasenaya* dhimahi* /tan nah* sasthah* [or sa.nmukhah*] pracodayat*

Gaurir* Mimaya*

Quoted to invite the Devi*,113 this is a well-knownmantra, from.RV* 1.164.41 onward:

gauri*(r) mimaya* salilani* taksati* ekapadi* dvipadi*sa* catupadi* / astapadi* navapadi* babhuvusi*sahasrraksara* parame vyoman.

Camakasukta*

This is one of the suktas* to be recited duringsradha*. A camakasukta* appears in the Samhitas* ofmost sakhas* of the Yajurveda (4.7.1-11; MS 2.11.2-5; KS 18.7-12; etc.):prasavas* ca me prayatis* ca me prasitis* ca medhitis* ca me kratus* ca me svaras* ca me slokas* ca

me slokas* ca me sravas* ca me srutis* ca me jyotis*ca me svas* ca me yajnen* kalpantam* Etc., etc.Tat Purusa*º

This is to be recited while putting ear (1.25.40); equivalent to the rudragayatriearlier).

Tryambaka

This mantra is prescribed, for a vaisyabrahmacarin*, while applying thea well-attested mantra, from RV* 7.59.12 onward:

tryambakarm* sugandhim*

yajamahe* pustivardhanam* /urvarukam* ivabandhanan*

mrtyor* muksiya*mamrtat*.

(Cf. under mrtyumjaya*. )

Tryayusa *

This is referred to not explicitly as amantra but in connection with putting onthe ashes.115 It is a well-attested verse,from AV 5.28.7 onward:

tryayusam*jamadagneh*

kasyapasya*tryfiyuuam* /

yad devesu*tryayusam*

tan no astutryayusam*.

Pancabrahma*This mantra is quoted in the chapters onthe tripundra*116 and rudraksaunder sub sadyojata*).

Purusasukta*

This is listed among the mantras to berecited during jaladhara* (ordharapuja*): suktena* paurusena* va(2.1.14.69; cf. 6.12.68: paurusam*suktam*). In one passage (2.5.56.27), theasura Bana* praises Siva* with a reminiscent of RV* 10.90.12:

brahmanam* te mukham* prahur* bahum*ksatriyam* eva ca /urujam* vaisyam* ahus* te padajam*sudram* eva ca.

Bhave Bhave Natibhave*

The sequence starting with this mantra, aspart of the pranavaproksana*, makes use,in detail,118 of sections of a longersequence, for which see listing undersadyojata*. It corresponds to TA* 10.43-44, MahaU* 17.1-2 (# #278-280).

Ma* Nas Tike

This mantra is cited in connection with thetripundra*, for brahmans andksatriyas*.119 It is a mantra often quotedfrom RV* 1.114.8 onward:

ma* nas toke tanaye ma* na ayau* (orayusi*) ma* no gosu* ma* no asvesu*ririsah* /viram* ma* no rudra bhamito* vadhir*havismanto* sadam it tva* havamahe* (ornamasa* vidhema te).

Mrtyumjaya*

The mrtyumjayamantra* (2.2.38.21;

2.5.49.42), also calledmrtasamjivanimantra* (2.2.38.30),mrtyumjayavidya* (2.2.38.20),mrtajivani* vidya* (2.5.15.47), ormrtasamjivani* vidya* (2.5.50.41), isquoted several times in the Sivapurana*.In addition to general references,mantra is said to have been composed bySiva* himself,121 who handed it over toSukra*, the preceptor of the Daityas.Sukra*, therefore, became the rnrtyum*-

jayavidyapravartaka * (2.2.38.20); he used it torevive the Asuras (2.5.15.47) and the and Danavas* (2.5.47.33-34). Sukra* revealed to Dadhica* mahamrtyumjayam*mantram (2.2.38.22-29):

tryambakam* yajamahe*123 ca trailokyapitara*prabhum /trimandalasya* pitaram* trigunasya* mahesvaram*//tritattvasya trivahnes* ca tridhabhutasya*sarvatah* /tridivasya tribahos* ca tridhabhutasya* sarvatah.*

//tridevasya mahadevah* sugandhim*pustivardhanam* /sarvabhutesu* sarvatra trigunesu* krtau* yatha* //indriyesu* tathanyesu* devesu* ca ga.nesu* ca /puspe* sugandhivat surah* sugandhiramahesvarah*//pustis* ca prakrter* yasmat* purusad* vaidvijottama /mahadadivisesantavikalpas* capi* suvrata//visnoh* pitamahasyapi* muninam* ca mahamune* /indriyas* caiva devanam* tasmad* vaipustivardhanah* //tam* devam amrtam* rudram* karma.na* tapasapi*va* /

svadhyayena* ca yogena dhyayena* ca prajapate*//satyenanyena* suksmagran* mrtyupasad* bhavasvayam /bandhamoksakaro* yasmad* urvarukam* ivaprabhu.h*.

Yo Devanam*

In the course of the pancavaranapuja*Sivapurana*124 prescribes, in one breath, therecitation of a series of mantras, fromdevanam* up to yo vedadau*. None of thesemantras is referred to separately in theexcept for the last one.

The entire sequence appears, identically, in TA*10.10.3 and MahaU* 10.3-8 (# #223-234):

yo devanam* prathamam* purastad* visva* dhiyorudro maharsiih.* /hiranyagarbham* pasyata* jayamanam* sa nodevah* subhaya* smrtya* samyunaktu* //yasmat* param* naparam* asti kimcid* yasman*naniyo* na jyoyo* 'sti kascit* / vrksa* iva stabdhodivi tisthaty* ekas tenedam* puroam* purusena*sarvam //na karmana* na prajaya* dhanena tyagenaike*amrtatvam* anasuh* /parena* nakam* nihitam* guhayam* vibhrajad*etad yatayo visanti* //vedantavijnanasuniscitarthah* samnyasayogad*

yatayah*

suddhasattvah* / te brahmaloke tu parantakale*paramrtah*. parimucyanti sarve.dahram* vipapam* paravesmabhutam* yatpundarikam* puramadhyasamstham* / tatrapi*dahram* gahanam* visokam* tasmin yad antastad upasitavyam* //

yo vedadau* svarah*prokto

vedante* ca paristhitah*/

tasya prakrtilinasya* yah* parah* samahesvarah* //

Yo Vedadau * Svarah*

Siva* is invoked with thismantra in the course of thefourth avarana* (6.8.13). It isthe last in a sequence ofmantras beginning with yodevanam* (see previouslisting).

Vamadevaya*

Fifteen rudraksas* shall be

worn on the stomach with thismantra (1.25.41). Itcorresponds to TA* 10.44.1and MahaU* 17.2 (# #279-281).For the text, see listing undersadyojata*.

Satarudriya*

The satarudriya*125 is referredto repeatedly in theSivapurana*. 126The Vedicway (vaidiko vidhih*) ofinstalling a clay linga* (1,

Chapter 20) uses severalsatarudriya* mantras,apparently according to theVajasaneyisamhita* (VSChapter 16) rather than anyother text.127 The followinglists these mantras in the orderin which they appear in the VS(with the verses in theSivapurana* 1, Chapter 20 inparentheses):

1. namas te rudra (v. 12)

2. ya* te rudra (v. 16)3. yam* isum* (v. 17)

5. adhyavocat (v. 17)

7. asau yo (v. 18)

8. namo 'stu nilagrivaya*(vv. 14, 19, 28)

11-14. ya* te hetih* (v. 24)

15. ma* no mahantam*(vv.16, 33)

15-16. id. (v. 30)

16. ma* nas toke (vv. 23, 30,33)

26. namah* senabhya.h* (v.35)

27. namah* taksabhyah*.(v. 25)

28. namah* svabhyah* (v.25)

29. namah* kapardine (v.27)

31. nama asave* (vv. 27, 32)

32. namo jyesthaya* (v. 28)

36. namo dhrsnave* (v. 23)

41. namah*sambhavaya*128 (v. 13)

42. namah* paryaya* (v. 26)

44. namo vrajyaya*129 (v.29)

46. namah* parnaya* (v.26)

48. ima* rudraya*130(v. 29)

48-50. id. (v. 32)

In the same chapter, thesesatarudriya* mantras,however, are interspersed witha variety of other mantras. Inaddition to the more commonnamah* sivaya* (v. 11) andtryambaka (vv. 19, 28, 34), onthe one hand,

and asau jiva * (v. 18), whichis attested only in theParaskaragrhyasutra*(1.18.3), and namo gobhyah*(v. 35), which seems not to beattested elsewhere, on the other,all these mantras are typicallyyajurvedic. Some of themappear in the Rgveda*and,indeed, are introduced as tryrc*(vv. 21, 31)all appear in theVajasaneyisamhita*, most of

them also in theTaittiriyasamhita* and theother samhitas* of theKrsnayajurveda*:

v. 11. bhur* asi (VS,TaitSam, etc.)

v. 12 apo* 'sman* (RV*,AV, VS, TaitSam, etc.)

v. 15 etat te rudraya* (VSand SB* only, rudravasam*)

v. 20 payah* prthivyam*

(VS, TaitSam, etc.)dadhikravnena* (RV*, VS,TaitSam, etc.)

v. 21 ghrtam* ghrtayava*(VS, TaitSam, etc.)madhuvata*, madhunaktam,madhuman* no (tryrc*: RV,VS, TaitSam, etc.; also TA,MahaU*)

v. 31 hiranyagarbhah*(tryrc*: .RV, VS, TaitSam,etc.; also T A*, MahaU*)

v. 34 yato yat (VS only)v. 37 deva* gatu* (AV, VS,TaitSam, etc.)

Sadyojata*131

This mantra is referred torepeatedly in the Sivapurana*,most often as sadyadi*,132 butoccasionally as pancabrahma*

A sequence beginning withsadya and ending in OM*(6.7.41: omantam) appears only

in TA* 10.43-47 and MahaU*17.1-5 (# #277-286):

sadyojatam* prapadyami*sadyojataya* vai [namo]namah.* /bhave bhave natibhave*bhavasva mam*bhavodbhavaya* namah* // 1vamadevaya* namo jyesthaya*namah* srestaya* namorudraya* namah* kalaya*namah* kalavikaranaya* namoballaya* namo balavikaranaya*namo balaprathanaya* namah*

sarvabhutadamanaya* namomanonmanaya* namah* // 2aghorebhyo 'tha ghorebhyoaghoraghoratarebhyah* /sarvatah* sarvah* sarvebhyonamas te rudra rupebhyah* // 3tat purusaya* vidmahemahadevaya* dhimahi* /tan no rudrah* pracodayat* // 4isanah* sarvavidyanam*isvarah* sarvabhutanam*brahmadhipatir* brahmano*'dhipatir / brahma* sivo* meastu sa eva sadasiva* om // 5

This sequence of mantras isprescribed as the second"Vedic" wayfor the first, see thelisting under satarudriya*toinstall a clay linga* (1.20.39-41). Cf. the same sequence,with one inversion (1, 2, 4, 3,5): 2.1.11.49-51. On oneoccasion, while the samnyasi*applies ashes to various parts ofhis body, the entire sequence isreferred to in reverse order.133The Sivapurana* also

establishes a connectionbetween these five mantras

and the constituent parts of OM*: a, u, m, bindu, andnada*,134 and, in reverseorder, with the five syllables ofnamah* sivaya*.135

The Bhasmajabalopanisad*,quoted earlier in this chapter,refers to sadyojata* as the firstof the pañcabrahmamantras(Chapter 1: sadyojatam*ityadipancabrahmamantrair*

bhasma samgrhya*...); cf. alsothe Kalagnirudropanisad*. Inthe Sivapurana*, Siva* himselfis referred to aspañcamantratanu (6.12.15)and pañcabrahmatanu(7.2.12.9).

Hamsamantra*

The text occasionally refers tohamsamantra* (6.6.52:hamsamantram* anusmaran)and prescribes, without further

specification, the hamsanyasa*(6.6.77).

The hamsamantra*, which isknown from the Rgveda* (RV*4.40.5) onward, appears innumerous later texts:

hamasah* sucisad* vasurantariksasad* dhota* vedisad*atithir duronasad* /nrsad* varasad rtasad*vyomasad abja* goja* rtaja*adrija* rtam* [brhat*].

In contrast to the preeminenceof and constant recourse to"Vedic" mantras, one cannotfail being struck, in this saiva*Purana*, by the verysubordinate role played byTantra generally and Tantricbijamantras* in particular.

To be sure, the text refers anumber of times to theastramantra,136 once toastramantravinyasa* aswell.137 Elsewhere, the mantra

is described as astraya* phat*(6.6.50) or om astraya* phat*(6.6.49).138

Again, in the same chapter ofthe Kailasasamhita*, entitledsamnyasapaddhatau*nyasavidhih*, there areoccasional references to Tantricmantras. The nyasa* shall beperformed, reciting "hram*,etc."139At another stage of thenyasa*, the ascetic "recites thepranava* first, followed by

hrim*, hram* ,sa."140 Amantra "ending in hram*,hrim* ,hrum*'' is mentioned inconnection with the nyasa* ofthe limbs.141 However, theprincipal mantras involved inthe nyasa* are OM* and thefive mantras, mentioned earlier,starting with sadya (6.6.63-75).

The single instance in whichTantric bijamantras* have beenquoted more extensivelyconcerns the rudraksas*.

Different mantras have to berecited, depending on thenumber of "faces" (vaktra,mukha) of the rudraksas*,from one to fourteen (after1.25.81):

1. om* hrim* namah*

2. om* namah*

3. klim* namah*

4. om* hrim* namah*

5. om* hrim* namah*

6. om* hrim* hum* namah*

7. om* hum* namah*

8. om* hum* namah*

9. om * hrim* hum* namah*

10. om* hrim* namah*

11. om* hrim* hum*namah*

12. om* kraum* ksaum*raum* namah*

13. om* hrim* namah*

14. om* namah*.

Efforts to account for the

source, or sources, of the manymantras quoted in theSivapurana*, at this stage, canyield only tentative and partialresults. As I indicated earlier,one important restrictionderives from the unavoidablylimited scope of Bloomfield's(1906). Concordance. Eventhough nearly all "Vedic"mantras found in the Purana*are listed in it, it remainspossible that the immediate

source on which the composersof this version of theSivapurana* relied was notavailable to Bloomfield. Asecond restriction, of a verydifferent nature, derives fromthe fact that a number ofpratikas* used in the Purana*are too short to allow us toidentify with absolute certaintythe mantras for which theystand. Such Pratikas* includeagnir vai (6.12.89), atra

pitarah* (6.12.74), esa* te(1.20.34), devasya tva*(1.20.31), etc.

Keeping these restrictions inmind, it is clear that there is nosingle source for the mantras inthe Sivapurana*. I indicatedearlier that a number of mantrasare explicitly, yet not alwayscorrectly, introduced as rcs*and that for some of these, suchas a* vo rajanam*, theRgveda* may indeed have been

the direct source. Thisconclusion, however, is notjustified in a majority of casesincluding such mantras as apo*hi stha* or yasya ksayaya*(1.13.22) and other mantrasquoted earlier; even though,ultimately, they are indeedRgvedic* mantras, they alsoappear in many other potentialsources.

Far more important than theRgveda* is the Yajurveda. The

satarudriya* mantras as quotedin the Sivapurana* proved toconform to their readings in theVajasaneyisamhita*. On theother hand, many mantras,including some of the moreprominent ones throughout thetext, are unique to theTaittiriyasakha* generally andits Aranyaka* in particular.This is the case for om apo*jyotih* and apo* vai (6.4.21),as well as for the yo devanam*

,sadyojata*, etc. mentionedearlier. I pointed out that, as faras the Vedic Concordanceallows us to judge, besides theTaittiriyaranyaka*, several ofthese mantras appear only inthe corresponding passages ofthe Mahanarayana* Upanisad*;for some of them, such as theskandagayatri*, theMahanarayanopanisad*,indeed, is the single knownsource. This fact, combined

with the explicit references inthe text to the Jabalopanisad*and the possibility that theVaradatapaniyopanisad* mayhave been a source for themantra gananam* tva*, seemsto suggest that some of the laterUpanisads* may have beenamong the principal sourcesthat the composers of theSivapurana* drew upon fortheir knowledge of "Vedic"mantras.

Notes

1. These problems arediscussed in Ludo Rocher, ThePuranas * in A History ofIndian Literature, J. Gonda,general editor. Wiesbaden:Harrassowitz, 1986, p. 33.

2. Bombay: Ganapatikrsnaji's*Press, 1884; Bombay:Venkatesvara* Press, 1895-96;Calcutta: Vangavasi* Press,

1908.

3. Bombay: Venkatesvara*Press, 1906 and 1965; Kasi*:Panditapustakalaya*, 1962-63.The translation in AncientIndian Tradition andMythology, vols. 1-4 (Delhi:Motilal Banarsidass, 1969-70and variously reprinted) alsofollows these editions.

4. Occasionally, not always formetrical reasons, the term

mantra is replaced by manu.E.g., 1.24.35:pancabrahmadimanubhih*,tryarnbakena manuna*;1.24.36: aghorenatha*manuna*; 3.32.17,28: japanpancaksaram* manurn;6.12.15: pranavdn* manun*.Another term usedoccasionally instead of mantrais vidya*. E.g., 2.5.15.47:vidyaya* mrajivinya*; 4.20.45and 7.2.13.4: pancaksarim*

ridyam*; 6.10.13:srimatparicaksari* vidya*.More examples of both manuand vidya* will be found inother quotations later in thisarticle.

5. 1.2.66:ºsatsamklptamantraugha* . . .ºyuktam*.

6. 1.2.12: tavat* sarve mantra*vivadante mahitale* / yavac*chivapurranam* hi nodesyati*

mahitale*.

7. 2.5.8.17: balasaya* varas*caiva sarvalaksanasamyuktah*/ mantra* ghantah* smrtas*tesam* varnapadas*tadasramah*. The soleexception to this is thepranava* (see below, and note76).

8. 4.38.34: amantrakam* nakartavyam* pujanam* tuharasya ca. Later in the

description of the sivaratri*, itis said that every object offeredto Siva* should beaccompanied by its own,specific mantra (4.33.48: tasyatasya ca mantrena* prthag*dravyam* samarpayet). Thesemantras are not identified.

9. 2.1.11.59: mantrapurvam*prakartavya* puja*sarvaphalaprada*. At onepoint (1.14.41), the text seemsto restrict worship with mantras

to brahmans: tasmad* vaidevayajanam*saivabhistaphalapradam* /samantrakam*brahmananuim* anyesam*caiva tantrikam*.

10. 4.38.18: sivarcanam*rudrajapa upavasah*sivalaye* / varanasyam* camantranam* muktir esa*sanatani*.

11. Terms such as

mulamantra* (1.25.42;2.1.13.41), rudramantra(2.5.6.7), rudrajapya* (3.7.8),etc., most probably refer to it aswell.

12. On one occasion thepranava* isanthropomorphized (3.8.33:amurto* murtiman* . . .uvaca*) and made to sing thepraise of Siva* (vv. 34-35).

13. 1.17.4: pro hi

prakrtijatasya* samsarasya*mahodadheh* / navam*navam* vararn iti pranavam*vai vidur budhah*.

14. 1.17.5ab: prah * prapanco*na nasti* vo yusmakam*pranavam*viduh*.

15. 1.17.5cd: prakarsena*nayed yasman* moksam* vah*pranavam* viduh*.

16. 1.17.6-8: svajapakanam*yoginam*svamantrapujakasya* ca /sarvakarmaksayam* krtva*divyajnanam* tu nutanam* //

tam eva mayarahitam*nutanam* paricaksate* /prakarsena* mahatmanam*navam* suddhasvarupakam* //nutanam* vai karotiti*pranavam* tam* vidurbudhah*.

17. 6.3.14:brahmadisthavarantanam*sarvesam* praninam* khalu /pranah* pranava* evayam*tasmat* pranava* iritah*.

18. 1.17.8-9: pranavam*dvividham* proktam*suksmasthulavibhedatah* //suksmam* ekaksaram* vidyat*sthulam* pancaksaram*viduh*.

19. 1.17.9: suksmam*avyaktapancarnam*suvyaktarnam* tathetarat.

20. 1.17.12-15: suksmam* cadvividham* jneyam*hrasvadirghavibhedatah* //

akaras* ca ukaras* camakaras* ca tatah* param /bindunadayutam* tad dhisabdakalanvitam* //dirghapranavam* evam* hiyoginam* eva hrdgatam* /makaram* tam* tritattvam* hihrasvapranava* ucyate //sivah* saktis* tayor aikyam*makaram* tu trikatmakam* /hrasvam evam* hi japyah*syat* sarvapapaksayaisinam*.

21. 1.17.33: sivanama*

namahpurvam* caturthyam*pancatattvakam* /sthulapranavarupam* hisivapancaksaram* dvijah*.

22. For instance, when it saysabout Grtsamada*: hrdaye*samsmaran* bhaktya*pranavena* yutam* sivam*(5.3.63).

23. 3.39.3: pancaksaram*manum* sambhor* japansarvottamottamam.

24. 1.11.16: udirya* camahamantram* omkaram*nadaghositam*; 3.42.21:pranave* caivaomkaranamasil* lingam*uttamam; 4.18.22: pranave*caiva omkaranamasit* sasadasivah*. Several otherpassages to be quoted later inthis article point in the samedirection.

25. 1.18.27: tad eva lingam*prathamam* pranavam*

sarvakamikam*.

26. 1.16.113-114: pranavam*dhvanilingam* tunadalingam* svayambhuvah* /bindulingam* tu yantram*syan* makaram* tupratisthitam* // ukaram*caralingam* syad* akaram*guruvigraham /sadlingapujaya* nityam*jivanmukto* na samsayah*.

27. 1.11.38: samadhau*

manasam* proktam upamsu*sarvakalikam*.

28. For definitions of the firstthree types of japa, see7.2.14.26-28: yaduccanicasvaritaih*spastaspastapadaksaraih* /mantram uccarayed* vaca*vaciko* 'yam* japah* smrtah*// jihvamatraparispandad*isad* uccarito* 'pi va* /aparair asrutah* kimcic*chruto vopamsur* ucyate //

dhiya* yad aksarasrenya*varnad* varnam* padat*padam / sabdarthacintanam*bhuyah* kathyate manaso*japah*.

29. E.g., 3.32.16: tatravahya*sivam* sambam* bhaktya*pancaksarena* ha; 4.38.57:anyatha* pancavarnena*tosayet* tena sankaram*.

30. E.g., 1.20.50: sadaksarena* mantrena* tato dhyanam*samacaret*; 1.24.27: japyomantrah* sadaksarah*;2.1.4.65: sarvasrutisrutam*saivam* mantram* japasadaksaram*.

31. 4.20.45: pancaksaramayim*vidyam* jajapa*pranavanvitam*.

32. 6.7.38: omkaradi*

caturthyantam*namamantram* namo'ntakam.

33. 4.13.44: tadom* namah*sivayeti* srisabdapurvakaya*ca / varan* sodasa*samkalpapujam* kuryad*ayam* vatuh*.

34. There is also a reference toa ten-syllable mantra (1.11.48:dasarnamantra*).

35. 2.5.7.25-26: pranavam*purvam* uccarya* namah*

pascad* udaharet* / sivayeti*tatah* pascac* chubhadvayamatah* param // kurudvayam*tatah* proktam* sivaya* catatah* param / namas* capranavas* caiva... For thebenefits of this mantra, see vv.40-42.

36. 2.2.5.62-63:mantrenanena* devesam*sambhum* bhaja subhanane* /tena te sakalavaptir*bhavisyati* na samsayah* //

om* namas* sankarayeti* omity antena santatam /maunatapasyaprarambham*tan me nigadatah* srnu*.

37. 7.2.13.11-13: abhaksa*vayubhaksas* ca ye canye*vratakarsitah* / tesam* etairvratair nasti* mamalokasamagamah* // bhaktya*pancaksarenaiva* yo hi mam*sakrd* arcayet / so 'pi gacchenmama sthanam*mantrasyasyaiva* gauravat* //

tasmat* tapamsi* yajnas* cavratani* niyamas* tatha* /pancaksararcanasyaite*kotyamsenapi* no samah*.

38. 7.2.12.32-33:saptakotimahamantrair*upamantrair anekadha* /mantrah* sadaktaro*bhinnah* sutram*vrttyatmana* yatha* //sivajnanani* yavanti*vidyasthanani* yani* ca /sadaksarasya* sutrasya* tani*

bhasyam* samasatah*.

39. 7.2.12.7: tad bijam*sarvavidyanam* mantramadyam* sadaksaram* /atisuksmam* mahartham* cajneyam* tad vatabijavat*.

40. 1.24.27: bahunatra* kimuktena dharyam* bhasmasada* budhaih* /lingarcanam* sada* karyam*japyo mantrah* sadaksarah*.

41. 1.16.115-16: sivasya*

bhaktya* puja* hijanmamuktikari* nrnam* /rudraksadharanat* padam*ardham* vai bhutidharanat* //tripadam* mantrajapyac* capujaya* purnabhaktiman* /sivalingam* ca bhaktam* capujya* moksam* labhennarah*.

42. The text here distinguishesthree kinds of tapas: sattvika*,rajasa*, and tamasa*(5.20.9).

43. 2.2.23.31. The nine angas*are sravana* ,kirtana*,smarana* ,sevana, dasya*,arcana, vandana, sakhya, andatmarpana* (2.2.23.22-23). Onsixteen kinds of puja*, see1.11.26-29.

44. 4.29.48: tadadhisena*tatraiva pratyaksam*sivapujanam* / krtam* caparthivasyaiva* vidhanena*munisvarah*.

45. 4.29.47: kecit tatra sthita*dhyane* baddhvasanam*anuttamam / manasim*sivapujam* ca kecic cakrurmudanvitah*.

46. 4.29.49: anyac ca ye najananti* vidhanam*smaranam* param / namah*sivaya* mantrena*dhyayantah* sankaram*sthitah*.

47. 1.25.83: vina * mantrena*yo dhatte rudraksam* bhuvimanavah* / sa yati* narakam*ghoram* yavad* indras*caturdasa*.

48. 1.24.64-65: saptakoti*mahamantrah*pancaksarapurahsarah* /tathanye* kotiso* mantrah*saivakaivalyahetavah* // anyemantras* ca devanam*

sarvasaukhyakara* mune / tesarve tasya vasyah* syur yobibharti tripundrakam*.

49. 1.24.79. Cf. 1.24.22:akrtva* bhasmana* snanam*na japed vai sadaksaram* /tripundram* ca racitva* tuvidhind* bhasmana* japet.

50. For this construction as atypical expression of"continuance," see W. D.Whitney: Sanskrit Grammar,

Leipzig: Breitkopf & Hartel*,1889 (often reprinted), par.1075c.

51. 2.1.14.23-24: laksena*bhajate kascid* dvitiye*jatisambhavah* /trtiye*kamanalabhas* caturthetam* prayacchati //pancamam* ca yada* laksam*phalam* yacchatyasamsayam* / anenaiva tumantrena* dasalakse*phalam* bhavet. See later, for

the number of recitations for abrahman woman, a ksatriya*,vaisya*, and sudra*, toimprove their status.

52. Cf. 2.5.6.7-8: jajapa*rudramantram . . .sardhakotipramitam*; 1.25.58:rudraksena* japan mantram*punyam* kotigunam* bhavet;4.14.40: (mrtyumjayam*)dasakotimitam* . . .samavrtya*.

53. 1.11.43-44:pancakotijapam* krtva*sadasivasamo* bhavet //ekadvitricatuhkotya*brahmadinam* padam* vrajet.

54. 2.1.14.44: satam*astottaram* tatra mantrevidhir udahrtah*; 6.8.32:dhyatva* devam* ca devim* camanure astottaram* japet.

55. 4.38.50: satam*astottaram* mantram*

pathitva* jaladharaya* /pujayec* ca sivam* tatranirgunam* gunarupinam*. Forthe successive multiples of 108,see vv. 63, 67, 73.

56. 1.11.46: japed...astottarasahasram* vaigayatrim* pratar* eva hi;6.10.13:srimatpancaksarividyam*astottarasahasrakam*samjapya*; again, 6.10.23.

57. 7.2.14.34-36: angulya*japasamkhyanam* ekam evamudahrtam* /rekhayastagunam* vidyat*putrajivair* dasadhikam* //satam* syac*chankhamanibhih* pravalais*tu sahasrakam / sphatikair*dasashasram* mauktikairlaksam* ucyate // padmaksir*dasalaksam* tu sauvarnaih*kotir* ucyate / kusagranthya*ca rudraksair*

anantagunitam* bhavet.

58. J. Gonda 1963b, 274.

59. 6.1.17: pranavartho*mahesvarah*; 6.12.6:pranvarthas* sivah* saksat*pradhanyena* prakirtitah* /srutisu* smrtisastresu*puranesv* agamesu* ca.

60. E.g., 1.10.17: vacako* 'yamaham* vacyo* mantro 'yam*hi madatmakah* /tadanusmaranam* nityam*

mamanusmaranam* bhavet;6.3.20: pranavo* mamavacakah*; 6.11.47-48:pranavo* hi parah* saksat*paramesvaravacakah* /vacyah* pasupatir* devah*pasunam* pasamocakah* //vacakena* samahutah*pasun* moksayate* ksanat* /tasmad* vacakatasiddhih*pranavena* sivam* prati.

61. 7.2.12.19:tasyabhidhanamantro * 'yamabhidheyas* ca sa smrtah* /abhidhanabhidheyatvan*mantrah* siddhah* parah*sivah*.

62. 1.18.158: rahasyam*sivamantrasya* sivo* janati*naparah*.

63. 1.2.37: kailasasamhita*tatra tato 'pi parama* smrta* /

brahmasvarupini* saksat*pranavarthaprakasika*. Onone occasion, in the chapter onsamnyasamandalavidhih* (6,chapter 5) the function of"illuminating, manifesting" thepranavartha* is transferred tothe yantra in the pericarp of themandala*: karnikayam* likhedyantram*pranavarthaprakasakam*(6.5.9).

64. 1.10.15: tasman*

majjnanasiddhyartham*mantram omkaranamakam* /itah* param* prajapatam*mamakam* manabhanjanam*.

65. 6.2.1-2: durlabham* hisivajnanam*pranavarthaprakasakam* //yesam* prasanno bhagavan*saksac* chulavarayudhah* /tesam* eva sivajnanam*pranavarthaprakasakam*.

66. 1.7.2: asyottaram*

mahadevo* janati* sma nacaparah* / athapi* vaksye*tam aham* sivasya*krpayaiva* hi.

67. 6.1.16-17: tasmat*pauraniki* vidya* bhavatohrdi* samsthita* / puranani*ca sarvani* vedartham*pravadanti hi // vedah*pranavasambhutah*pranavartho* mahesvarah* /ato mahesvarasthanam* tvayidhisnyam* pratisthitam*.

68. 1.20.53: japetpancaksaram* mantram*gurudattam* yathavidhi*.

69. 1.18.90-92: sisyah* putra itiproktah* sada*sisyatvayogatah* /jihvalingan* mantrasukram*karnayonau* nisicya* vai //jatah* putro mantraputrah*pitaram* pujayed* gurum /nimajjayati putram* vaisamsare* janakah* pita* //

samtarayati* samsarad* gururvai bodhakah* pita* / ubhayorantaram* jnatva* pitaram*gurum arcayet.

70. 1.11.40: diksayuktam*guror grahyam* mantram* hyatha phalaptaye*. Parvati*requests Siva*: krpaya*paramesana*mantradiksavidhanatah* /mam*visuddhatmatattvastham* kurunityam* mahesvara* (6.2.12).

Siva*, in response: jagaudiksavidhanena* pranavadin*manun* kramat* (6.2.15).

71. 4.38.51: gurudattenamantrena* pujayed*vrsabhadhvajam* / anyatha*namamantrena* pujayed* vaisadasivam*.

72. 1.20.55: prarthayec*chankaram* bhaktya*mantrair ebhih* subhaktitah*(mantra: vv. 56-60); 2.1.13.47:

pascad* avahayed* devam*mantrenanena* vai narah*(mantra: vv. 47-53); 2.1.13.67:argham* dadyat* punastasmai mantrenanena*bhaktitah* (mantra: vv. 68-69);2.1.13.76: tatah* puspanjalir*deyo mantrenanena*bhaktitah* (mantra: vv. 77-80).

73. For instance, the mantraSukra* recites to find a way ofescape after having beenswallowed by Siva*:

sambhavenatha* yogenasukrarupena* bhargavah* /imam* mantravaram* japtva*Sambhor* jatharapanjarat* //niskrato* lingamargena* . . .(2.5.48.40-41). Thelongmantrais quoted before the first verseof Chapter 49. Shorter, 6.6.42:namah* sivaya* sambaya*saganayadihetave* / rudraya*visnave* tubhyam* brahmane*ca trimurtaye*.

74. 4.38.77: prarthayet*

sustutim* krtva* mantrair etairvicaksanah* (mantras: vv. 78-

81). For the use of thegerund merely as a modifier ofthe main verb, see LudoRocher, "A Note on theSanskrit Gerund," Recherchesde linguistique. Hommages àMaurice Leroy (Brussels:Université Libre, 1980), pp.181-88.

75. 1.19.11: yatha * sarvesu*mantresu* pranavo* hi

mahan* smrtah*; 7.2.12.30:bahutve 'pi hi mantranam*sarvajnena* sivena* yah* /pranito* vimalo mantro natena sadrsah* kvacit; 7.2.12.35: tenadhitam* srutam*tena krtam* sarvamanustitam* / yenom* namah*sivayeti* mantrabhyasah*sthirikrtah*.

76. 2.5.8.24: pratodobrahmanas* tasya pranavo*brahmadaivatam.

77. There are two exceptions,though, to Siva's* totalanduniqueidentification with thepranava*. First, an adoration toSkanda begins: om* namah*pranavarthaya*pranavarthavidhayine* /pranavaksarabijaya*pranavaya* namo namah*(6.11.22). Second, one shouldhonor Ganesa*: caturthyantairnamapadais* namo'ntaih*pranavadibhih* (2.1.13.29).

78. 5.3.7: tenajapaprabhavena* satyam*draksyasi* sankaram* /atmatulyabalam* putram*labhisyasi* mahesvarat*.

79. 1.23.7-8: srisivaya* namastubhyam* mukham*vyaharate* yada* /tanmukham* pavanam*tirtham* sarvapapavinasinam*// tanmukham* ca tatha* yovai pasyati* pritiman* narah*/ tirthajanyaphalam* tasya

bhavatiti* suniscitam*.

80. 1.17.132:sivasvarupamantrasya*dharanac* chiva eva hi /sivabhaktasarire* hi sive*tatpararamo bhavet; 1.17.133-134: yavad* yavac*chivamantram* yena japtam*bhavet kramat* // tavad* vaisivasamnidhyam* tasmin dehena samsayah*.

81. 6.3.1-2: tasya

sravanamatrena* jivah*saksac* chivo bhavet //pranavarthaparijnanam* evajnanam* madatmakam* /bijam* tat sarvavidyanam*mantram*pranavanatmakam*.

82. 1.17.122-128. Within thesystem of shedding off aprevious status first and thenacquiring a higher status, eachtime with 500,000 mantras, thesudra* should attain

mantravipratva after 3,000,000rather than 2,500,000 mantras.

83. 7.2.13.7: mayaivam asakrd*devi pratijnatam* dharatale* /patito 'pi vimucyeta madbhaktovidyayanaya*. 7.3.13.10 addsthat the mantra has to be thepancaksaramantra*; any othermantra is useless.

84. Cf. 1.10.23: vedah* sarvastato jajne* tato vaimantrakotayah* /

tattanmantrena* tatsiddhih*sarvasiddhir ito bhavet.'

85. 6.3.19-20: isanah*sarvavidyanam* ityadyah*srutayah* priye / matta evabhavantiti* vedah* satyam*vadanti hi // tasmad* vedadir*evaham* pranavo* mamavacakah* / vacakatvan*mamaiso* 'pi vedadir* itikathyate.

86. 6.3.3: (mantram*

pranavanamakam*) vedadi*vedasaram* ca; 1.5.16:vedantasarasamsiddham*pranavarthe* prakasanat*;6.1.45:vedantasarasarvasvam*pranavam* paramesvaram*.

87. 5.3.10: mantramadhyapitam* sarvam*atharvasirasam* mahat.

88. 6.6.61: pranavasya * rsir*brahma* devi gayatram*iritam* / chando 'tradevataham* vai paramatma*sadasivah*.

89. E.g., 2.1.11.60-65:mantrams* ca tubhyam*tams* tata*sarvakamarthasiddhaye* /pravaksyami* samasena*savadhanataya* srnu* //

pathyamanena* mantrena*tatha* vanmayakena* ca /rudrena* nilarudrena*susuklena* subhena* ca //hotarena* tatha* sirsna*subhenatharvanena* ca /santya* vatha* punah*santya* marunenarunena* ca// arthabhistena* samna* catatha* devavratena ca //rathantarena* puspena*suktena* ca yuktena ca /mrtyumjayena* mantrena*

tatha* pancaksarena* ca //jaladharah* sahasrena*satenaikottarena* va* /kartavya* vedamargena*namabhir* vatha* va*punah*.

90. 4.12.35: vedamantrais tatastam* vai kumbham*caivabhimantrayet* /srutyuktavidhina* tasyapujam* krtva* sivam* param.Cf. v. 37; tatra lingam* ca tatsthapya* punas*

caivabhimantrayet*.

91. Cf. 1.4.49: tatraite bahavo1oka* brhajjabalacoditaih* /te vicaryah* prayathena tatobhasmarato bhavet.

92. 1.24.8: agnir ityadibhir*mantrairjabalopanisadgataih* /saptabhir dhulanam* karyam*bhasmana* sajalena ca; 6.3.60:agnir ityadibhir* mantraistripundram* dharayet* tatah*.

93. 4.38.9-10: bhuri* vratani*ma santi bhuktimuktipradani*ca / mukhyani* tatra jneyani*dasasamkhyani* tani* vai //dasa* saivavratany* ahur*jabalasrutiparagah*.

94. 6.8.15: daksine* tu yajedrudram a* vo rajanam* ityrca*.

95. Even though, different fromRV* 4.3.1, these also occur inother possible sources.

96. 9.8.17: uttare visnum*avahya* gandhapuspadhibhir*yajet / pra tad visnur* itiprocya karnikayam* dalesu*ca.

97. 6.8.19: brahmanam*pascime* padme samavahya*samarcayet / hiranyagarbhah*samavartata iti mantrena*mantravit.

98. E.g., 1.20.24: rkcatuskena*;27, 29; rca*; 32: tryrca*.

99. 6.12.76: svagrhyoktena*margena* dadyat* pindan*prthak* prthak*.

100. On Siva's* birth asAghora, see 3.1.26.

101. 1.18.62:aghorenatmamantrena*;1.24.36: aghorenatha*manuna* vipinasthavidhih*smrtah*.

102. 1.25.40: aghorena* galedharyam*. 1.25.41 refers to

aghorabijamantrena*,unspecified.

103. I.e., as far as they are listedin Bloomfield (1906).

104. On Siva's* manifestationas Isana*, see 3.1.33.

105. 6.3.19: isanah*sarvavidyanam* ity adyah*srutayah* priye / matta evabhavantiti* vedah* satyam*vadanti hi.

106. Cf. 4.42.23: isanah *sarvavidyanam* srutir* esa*sanatani* / vedakarta*vedapatis tasmac* chambhurudahrtah*.

107. 1.24.37: sivayogi* caniyatam isanenapi* dharayet*.

108. 1.25.40:sirasisanamantrena*. . .dharyam*.

109. 6.7.15: murtim* prakalpyatatraiva gananam* tvetimantratah* / samavahya* tatodevam* dhyayed*ekagramanasah*.

110. Cf. the etymology ofgayatri*: gayakam* trayate*patad* gayatrity* ucyate hisa* (1.15.15).

111. 4.13.43: sivagayatrim*sodasaksarasamyutam*.

112. 6.7.19-20: padmasya

vayudikpadme* samkalpya*skandam* asanam* /skandamurtim* prakalpyatha*skandam avahayed* budhah*// uccarya* skandagayatrim*dhyayed* atha kumarakam*.

113. 6.7.64-65:gaurirmimayamantrena*pranavadyena* bhaktitah* /avahya*. . .

114. 1.24.34: vaisyas*tryambakenaiva; 35:

triyambakena manuna* vidhirvai brahmacarinah*.

115. 1.24.19: sivagnikaryam*yah* krtva* kuryat*triyayusatmavit* / mucyatesarvapapais* tu sprstena*bhasmana* narah*.

116. 1.24.35:pancabrahmadimanubhir*grhasthasya* vidhiyate*;1.25.42: pancabrahmabhir*angais* ca.

117. 6.12.68: citte sadasivam*dhyatva* japed brahmani*panca* ca.

118. 6.7.72-76:bhavebhavenatibhava* itipadyam* prakalpayet /vamaya* nama ity uktva*dadyad* acamaniyakam* //jyesthaya* nama ity uktva*subhravastram* prakalpayet /sresthaya* nama ity uktva*dadyad* yajnopavitakam* //rudraya* nama ity uktva*

punar acamaniyakam* /kalaya* nama ity uktva*gandham* dadyat*susamskrtam* //kalavikaranaya* namo'ksatam* ca parikalpayet /balavikaranaya* iti puspani*dapayet* // balaya* nama ityuktva* dhupam* dadyat*prayatnatah* /balapramathanayeti*sudipam* caiva dapayet*.

119. 1.24.33: manastokena*

mantrena* mantritam*bhasma dharayet* /brahmanah* ksatriyas* caivaproktesv* angesu*bhaktiman*.

120. 1.25.60: tripundrena* casamyuktam*rudraksavilasamgakam* /mrtyumjayam* japantam* cadrstva* rudraphalam* labhet;2.1.14.22: repetition ofmrtyumjayamantra*; 4.14.39-40: candrena* ca tapas

taptam* mrtyumjayena*mantrena* pujito*vrsabhadhvajah* //dasakotimitam* mantram*samavrtya* sasi* ca tam /dhyatva* mrtyumjayam*mantram* tasthauniscalamanasah*.

121. 2.5.50.41: tapobalenamahata* mayaivaparinirmita*.

122. 2.5.50.42: tvam* tam* tu

prapayamy* adyamantrarupam* mahasuce* /yogyata* te 'sti vidyayas*tasyah* sucitaponidhe*.

123. For several terms in thismantra, see under tryambaka.

124. 6.8.33-34: japed dhyatva *mahadevam* yo devanan* itikramat* / yo vedadau*svarah* prokta ityantam*paramesvari*.

125. The term srutirudrasukta*(1.24.47) may also refer to it; itsets free (mucyeta) one whoinsulted Siva* or the wearer ofthe tripundra*.

126. 1.20.36:

satarudriyamantrena* japedvedavicaksanah*; 1.20.54:pathed* vai satarudriyam*;1.21.51: tatah* pancaksaram*japtva* satarudriyam* eva ca;cf. also 2.1.14.68; 3.8.54-55;4.12.36; 6.1.7; etc.

127. See the following threenotes.

128. TaitSam, KS, MS:sambhave*.

129. VS only.

130. Absent from TaitSam.

131. Sadyojata* is Siva's* firstavatara* in the nineteenth(svetalohita*) kalpa (3.1.4).Cf. 3.41.36: sadyojataya* vainamah*.

132. 1.11.13: sampujya*lingam* sadyadyaih*; 16:sadyadibrahma* coccarya*;cf. also 1.18.26; 6.7.8,41;6.10.8; etc.

133. 6.4.23: isanadi*samarabhya* sadyantam*pancabhih* kramat*.

134. 6.3.26-29:sadyadisanaparyantany*akaradisu* pancasu* /sthitani* panca* brahmani*tani* manmurtayah* kramat*// astau* kalah* samakhyata*akare* sadyajah* sive* /ukare* vamarupinyas*trayodasa* samiritah* //astav* aghorarupinyo*

makare* samsthitah* kalah* /bindau catasrah* sambhutah*kalah* purusagocarah* //nade* panca* samakhyatah*kala* isanasambhavah* /sadvidhaikyanusamdhanat*prapancatmakatocyate*.

135. 7.2.12.9: isanadyani*suksmani* brahmany*ekaksarani* tu / mantrenamah* sivayeti* samsthitani*yathakramam* / mantresadaksare* suksme*

pancabrahmatanuh* sivah*.

136. 6.6.7: abhimantrya tatastasmin dhenumudram*pradarsayet* /sankhamudram* ca tenaivaproksayed* astramantratah*;6.7.9:avagunthyastramantrena*samraksartham* pradarsayet*/ dhenumudram* ca tenaivaproksayed* astramantratah*.

137. 2.5.58.26, on the Daitya

Dundubhinirhrada*, who wasunable to attack a brahmanmeditating on Siva*:krtastramantravinyasam*tam* krantum* asakan* nasah*. There are otherreferences to weapons used''with mantras"; e.g., Kali*, inher fight with Sankhacuda*:brahmastram* atha sa* devi*ciksepa* mantrapurvakam*(2.5.38.9). In turn,Sankhacuda*: ciksepa*

divyany* astrani* devyai vaimantrapurvakam* (11). Again,Kali*: jagraha* mantraputam*ca saram* pasupatam* rusa*(16).

138. Cf. VtU 2.2 and NpU 2.2,respectively.

139. 6.6.10: sadangani* hram*ityadini* vinyaset.

140. 6.6.24: pranavam*purvam* uddhrtya*hramhrimsas* tadanantaram..

141. 6.6.26: vinyasyangani*hramhrimhrumantena*manuna* tatah*.


AV AtharvavedaKS Kathaka * Samhita*

MahaU*Mahanarayana* Upanisad*(numbers refer to Varenne 1960)

MS Maitrayaniya* Samhita*

NpU Nrsimhapurvatapaniya*Upanisad*

RV* Rgveda*SB* Satapatha* Brahmana*TA* Taittiriya* Aranyaka*

TA* Taittiriya* Aranyaka*TaitSamTaittiriya* Samhita*VS Vajasaneyi* Samhita*VtU Varadapurvatapaniya* Upanisad*

Chapter 8The Use of Mantra in YogicMeditation: The Testimonyof the Pasupata *Gerhard Oberhammer

The point of departure for theinvestigation of the meaningand function of mantra in themeditation of the Pasupatas* is

the observation that, in thereligious traditions of India, wefind the use of mantra in yogicmeditation primarily in theisticmeditation while, on the otherhand, one cannot say that everytheistic Yoga meditationdemands the use of a mantra.For example, Bhasarvajna*,who, I believe I havedemonstrated (Oberhammer1984, Teil II "Transzendenz,das zu Ver-ehrende"), was a

convinced theist of thePasupata* type, does notmention the use of mantra inhis exposition of meditation(NBhu*, pp. 588, 15-590, 12),although he was stronglyinfluenced by Patanjali* and thePasupatas* certainly knew ofthe practice of mutteringmantras (japah*) in meditation.This inconsistency in thephenomenon suggests how toclarify the full complexity of

the question raised and,possibly, the way to answer it.

In my studies of the spiritualityof Yoga (Oberhammer 1977,162ff.), I have shown thatPatañjali, in his presentation ofthe Nirodha-Yoga that isattained throughisvarapranidhanam*, after all,discusses the basic structures ofwhat was originally a purelytheistic meditation and that hebrings to the service of his

nontheistic spirituality. We havethen in the Yoga-sutras*,perhaps the oldest statement ofthe basic structure of anauthentic theistic meditation. Itis noteworthy that the use of amantra in the meditation isattested even here in the contextof classical yogic meditation,where the single aim is to attaina vision of one's owntranscendental Purusa*, wherea mantra is not necessary,

where, indeed, strictly speakingthere is no meaningful use for amantra.

Patañjali explains the realizationof theistic samadhi* in YS 1.27and 28, "The one, denoting him(isvarah*) is the pranava*,"and in YS 1.28, "muttering it(pranavah*) and its realizationof its object." Despite theextremely terse diction, thewhole mantra problem and itsmeaning for the

act of meditation is brought intofocus: For, when Patañjali>says "the one denoting Him isthe pranava *," he is veiling thedeeper dimension of thisproblem, at least for the Yogioutside the theistic tradition.While interpreting thepranava* in terms of a triviallinguistic denotation, thespecific function of the mantra,although not negated, cannot be

grasped in its full complexityunder the horizon of theunderstanding of purusa* inSamkhya*. One even gets theimpression that Patañjali, in hisreception of theistic meditation,consciously did not make useof the particular function of themantra for the process ofmeditation. Its originalpresence, however, can beproven by a peculiarinconsistency of Patañjali's

thought: If the pranava* in thecontext of meditation werenothing more than a wordexpressing god, then it shouldbe a word for god like the word"isvarah*" or the name Visnu*or Siva*. This, however, is notthe case. The word OM* is nota term for god. YS 1.27,however, says that "the onedenoting god (isarah*.) is thepranava*".

When Vyasa*, in his

commentary on this sutra*,expressly discusses the problemof the pranava* as a linguisticphenomenon, he is obligated tospecify its nonlinguisticdimension. Then the originalfunction of mantra inmeditation comes moredistinctly into view,1 eventhough nothing more is saidabout it:

The one denoting him is thepranava*. The denoted one

(vacyah*) [related] to thepranava* is god (isvarah*.).Has [now] the relation betweenthe denoted and the denoter(vacyavacakatvam*) of thepranava* come about throughconvention (samketakrtam*) oris it like the shining of a lampexistent [beforehand](avasthitam*)?

[Answer:] The relationbetween the denoted and thedenoter exists [beforehand].The conventional usage

(samketah*), however,mediates (abhinayati) theobject of god (isvarasya*) thatexists beforehand [correlatedto the pranava*] as indeed theexisting relation between fatherand son is expressed throughthe conventional usage oflanguage [when one says] "heis that one's father, this one ishis son." (Ybh, 77, 2-6)2

It becomes evident here that therelationship between the mantraand god, who is to be realized

in the meditation (thoughexpressed by Patañjali in termsof denoter and denoted), cannotbe identical with the linguisticrelation between word and itsobject in human language andhas to be prior to any linguisticconvention. As Samkara* saysin his commentary on Vyasa*3cited earlier, "This is because ifthe relation spoken of here isnot [independent of anyconvention of language] it is

not true that through the formof the pranava* god is met faceto face." What is the originalrelation between the pranava*and god spoken of here byVyasa*, and, like the relationbetween father and son,independent of linguisticconventions? Why, inmeditation, is the pranava*,rather than the designations ofgod mentioned previously, "theone denoting god"? The texts of

Patañjala Yoga are silent aboutthis.

The investigation of ameditation of a purely theistictradition, namely, that of thePasupata *, leads further; all themore so because this meditationseems to correspond to the typeof meditation incorporated byPatañjali and, perhaps, even ishistorically identical to it. Likethe theistic meditation found inPatañjali, it is practiced bymuttering mantras. This

meditation is described in arather long passage in theRatnatika*, which was writtenaround 900 A.D. I would like toquote it in extenso:

What then is the means [forthinking of] god constatly(devanityatve)? [On this] hesays: Muttering [of mantras]and meditation(japadhyanam*). Themuttering [of mantras] andmeditation (japah*) consists inrepeating the third (aghora-)

and fourth (tatpurusa* =gayatri*) mantra. This istwofold, namely [muttering ofmantras] which results in thewithdrawal of the senses(pratyaharaphalah*) and thatwhich results in samadhi*(samadhiphalah*).

[Objection:] Muttering [amantra], which is performedwhile one is attached toanything else (anyasaktatve*),does not, even in a hundredyears, bring about the

withdrawal of the senses(pratyaharam*), but brings tohim [who practices it] onlyharm (dosam*).

[Answer:] Right, so it is. Buthere, because of thedistinguishing between a lowerand a higher, a twofoldwithdrawal of the senses(pratyahdradvaividhyam*) isadmitted; of these it is thelower [withdrawal of thesenses] which presupposes thepsychic apparatus

(antahkaranapurvah*). If themind (cittam) is free of stainsdue to the muttering [ofmantras] connected with this[withdrawal of the senses] andstands firm in Brahma(-mantra)like a fire-brand [swingin] a circlewithout dependingon any effort, then this is thehigher withdrawal of thesenses. It is said that itpresupposes the muttering [ofmantras] (japapurvakah*). Forit makes the mind (cittam)steady (niscalikaroti*) with

regard to the reality to bemeditated upon (dhyeyatattve),after the karma acquired innumerous births has alreadybeen burnt up (dagdhva*) evenin its slightest indication(laksanamatrena*).

Meditation (dhyanam*) is thecontinuous flow of reflection(sadrsas* cintaravahah*) withrespect to the reality of Rudra(rudratattve). This[meditation] is twofold, i.e.,one which presupposes the

muttering [of mantras] and onewhich presupposes the fixing[of thinking](dharanapurvakam*). The[meditation] then, whichpresupposes the muttering [ofmantras], has [already] beenexpounded implicitly before,the [meditation] whichpresupposes the fixing [ofthinking]: will be ex-pounded[now]. The "fixing" is the mind(cittarn) of one whoseconsciousness is in no wayaffected (amudhasya*), [his

mind being] deprived ofexternal objects(niralambanam*). Insofar asthe mind of one, who is in anunconscious or stupified state,is likewise without objects,because an act [of thinking] isnot taking place, it has beensaid in order to exclude it "one,whose consciousness is in noway affected (amud*-

hasya *)." One, who by meansof his mind (buddhya*), whichis supported by knowledge(vidya*), causes his mind to bewithout objects, is one whoseconsciousness is in no wayaffected. The mind which hasbeen freed from stains(nirmalikrtam*) and hasattained steadiness in thereality of Rudra by means offixing (dharanaya*), does notdeviate [from this] for a long

time. On account of this thevenerable author of theBhasya*4 calls this meditationin comparison with themeditation previously[mentioned] higher. (RT 19,27-20, 12)

Such is the description of theRatnatika*. If one attempts tointerpret it with the help of thecommentary to thePasupatasutras* (cited by theRatnatika* itself) then, it turns

out, that in this text,corresponding to its type, atleast two different forms ofmeditation (dhyanam*) arediscussed, of which both arecarried out with the help ofmantras, even if this is notimmediately obvious.

The basic character ofPasupata* meditation isfundamentally different fromPatañjali's yogic meditation:Meditation for the Pasupatas* is

nothing more than themeditative accomplishment ofwhat the Pasupata* ascetic aimsat during the whole path ofsalvation; i.e., the union(yogah*) of the atma* withMahesvara*, which for thePasupatas* is basically aspiritual disposition in life anda state of meditative experience.Thus, the so-called yoga of thePasupatas* is not about theindividual, systematically

arranged exercises throughwhich a specific psychic stateshould be reached, but it isactually concerned with thespiritual dispositionconsequently aimed at inSaiva* mysticism. Thecontemplation (dhyanam*)expounded in the Ratnatika* isthe meditative actualization ofthis mysticism, which isrealized differently on differentstages of the mystical path of

salvation, even when its basiccharacter remains the same. Thetwo forms of meditation differin the degree of immediacy andin the intensity of theexperience of union withMahesvara* that they facilitate.The degree of immediacy andintensity of this experience, inturn, seems to be based on theuse of mantras, which aredifferently structured andtherefore functionally different.

In accordance with thePasupata* understanding ofyoga as the union of the soulwith god, both types ofmeditation, the lower as well asthe higher contemplation dealtwith in the Ratnatika*,presuppose that the ascetic haspurified his mind and characterfrom the "impurity" (kalusam*)of moral deficiency andemotional turmoil by means ofhis conduct and by ritual

practices. According toKaundinya*, the term impurityrefers to hatred, desire, andwrath, which arise, forexample, on the first stage ofthe path of salvation fromemotionally uncontrolleddealings with women andSudras* and from looking atexcrements, etc. (cf.Kaundinya* 40, 5ff); that is tosay, from all psychic motionsthat prevent the mystical union

and the orientation of hisexistence towards Mahesvara*.

From what has been said so far,it is clear that Pasupata*meditation, in its lower form,can be practiced even by thebeginner from diksa*

onwards. But, in the propersense, it can be fully realized asmeditative mediation of andabsortion in the mystical uniononly in the third stage of thepath of salvation; that is, whenthe ascetic has becomehabitually free from everyimpurity and, therefore, hasachieved the competenceauthorizing (adhikarah *)mystical experience in

meditation for him.5Nevertheless, already in thecontemplation anticipated onthe first stage of the path ofsalvation, one circumstance ofgreat importance for thequestion of the function ofmantra in meditation becomesobvious.

It is noteworthy that thismeditation of the type of lowercontemplation (dhyanam*),when it is anticipated on the

first stage of the path ofsalvation, is not, in its actualfunction, meditation in thesense of contemplation properto the third stage. It is primarilya spiritual exercise, a psychicritual (manasi* kriya*)6 aimingat the removal of mentalimpurity7 in which thepurifying practicetouching theashes (upasparsanam*) andbreath-control(pranayamah*)8is reinforced

by the muttering of mantras(japah*).9 But it does notobviate the necessity of vidhi10and asceticism. This spiritualexercise, mantra-muttering,when performed, naturallyinduces a sort of meditativecommunion with Mahesvara*,which can be called a firstanticipation of thecontemplation (dhyanam*) tobe fully realized later. This isbecause, after the purity of the

mind has been achieved (cf. PS1.20)this has to be understoodin the sense of a relativegradationthe union (yogah*) ofthe soul with Mahesvara* arisesdue to it. In accordance withthat, Kaundinya* answers thequestion of the purpose ofmuttering mantras (japyam) inthe following way: "[Themuttering of mantras] is donefor the purpose of removingAdharma (vyucchityartham),

for the purpose of turning awayfrom [all] evil (akusalebhyo*vyavartanartham*) and offixing [the mind](upanibandhanartham*) uponthe continuous series of words[of that] Brahma[-mantra]"(52).

This statement of Kaundinya*,at first glance, is a statementabout mantra muttering as suchand not necessarily a statementabout the function of mantra

muttering (japah*) inmeditation. Nevertheless, onecan postulate that this statementabout the effect of mantra isvalid for mantra in general and,therefore, for mantra in thecontext of meditation. Insofaras it concerns the kind of effectand not whether that effectappears, the mantra is a realitywhose effect is attained out ofitself and not on account ofcertain circumstances.

Moreover, the third of theeffects described byKaundinya* leads into theprocess of meditation. If this iscorrect, then we can say on thebasis of Kaundinya's*conception of the purpose andeffect of mantra muttering thatthe effects mentioned can alsobe attributed to the mantra inmeditation, especially on thefirst stage of the path ofsalvation, where the ascetic is

still occupied with thepurification of his mind.

Accordingly, one can, indeedone must, speak of a power ofthe mantra to purify the mindand character of the meditatingsubject from any impurity. Inspite of the effect mentionedearlier (i.e., the concentration ofthe mind on the respectiveBrahma mantra, an effect thatunder

certain circumstances, may alsobe understood aspsychological), this power has adearly "sacramental" character.We will return to thissacramental character in orderto understand it in itscomplexity. For now, it issufficient to say that the wordsacramental in the faith of thePasupata * ascetic implies onlythat the mantra has an

objectively operating power,which up to now could beascertained as a powerpurifying the mind andcharacter of the ascetic.

This is corroborated by theRatnatika's* characterization ofthe five Brahma mantras usedby the Pasupata* ascetic as the"five purifiers" (pañcapavitrani*) (cf. RT* 17, 2; 18,14, and 19, 2). In this regard, itis interesting that Vyasa* also

defines the svadhyaya* ofkriyayoga* or niyama as"muttering of the 'purifiers'such as, for instance, thePranava*" (Ybh. 128, 3). Hethus testifies to the purifyingeffect of the mantra. Thistestimony gains significance, ifone remembers that, accordingto Patañjail, the mantra is usednot only as a "purifier" amongthe acts preparatory tomeditation but also as a

mediating factor in meditation,just as among the Pasupatas*(cf. YS 1.27f.).

I turn now to the use of mantrain the Pasupata* meditation thatthe Ratnatika* calls "lowercontemplation" (aparam*dhyanam*) and that isdiscussed in Section 5.21-23 ofthe Pasupatasutras*. Thismeditation begins with theintentional withdrawal(pratyaharah*) from the

objects of the senses and withthe deliberate concentrationupon the act of meditation. This"lower pratyahara*," as it iscalled by the Ratnatika*, isintensified by the muttering ofthe so-called Brahma mantras11in such a way that theworshipful attentiveness of themeditating subject istransformed into contemplationof the "lower" type, for whichreason the Ratnatika* calls this

pratyahara* ''higher."

This intensification of thepratyahara* reveals the thirdeffect of mantra mutteringmentioned by Kaundinya*;namely, the concentration onthe Brahma mantra, which mustnow be discussed briefly. If theconcentration necessary for thecontemplation is alreadyachieved by means of the lowerpratyahara*, one has to askwhether the effect of the mantra

mentioned earlier, in fact, isonly of a psychological nature,as previously had beenconsidered a possibility.

This question is actually raisedin the Ratnatika*, albeit inanother way: "Muttering [amantra] which is performedwhile one is attached toanything else (anyasaktatve*)does not bring about thewithdrawal of the senses(pratyaharam*) even in a

hundred years, but brings tohim [who practices it] onlyharm (dosam*)." In the answerthis, characteristically, is notdenied. It remains thus that themantra brings only harm tosomeone who practices itwithout having turned awayfrom objects. This seems tomean that the mantra possessesan objective power that cannotbe explained psychologically.

In light of this, the

characterization of the higherpratyahara*, which at the sametime indicates the definition ofthe lower contemplation (cf.RT* 20, 7) gains an entirelydifferent significance. TheRatnatika* says, "if as a

result of this [mantra]muttering, which is connectedwith this [lower withdrawal],the mind is free from anyimpurity and withoutdepending on exertion..., standsfirm in Brahman (i.e., theBrahma mantra) 12 then that isthe higher pratyahara*" (RT*20, 3f.). It accordingly definesthe meditation thus initiated as"the continuous flow of

reflection (cinta*) with respectto the reality of Rudra" (RT*20, 6); that is to say, as theperpetuation of the state ofmind thus initiated.

To summarize, one must say,first, that the purifying powerof the mantra alreadymentioned retains itssignificance in meditation;second, that the mantra, if usedwithout deliberate detachmentfrom sense objects, as it were in

a frivolous and unworthymanner, far from helping themeditating subject, does himharm. Thereby, it has to be keptin mind that the Ratnatika*says this explicitly inconnection with meditation.And, third, it has to be kept inmind that the mantra is whatmakes the mind of themeditating subject stand firm inBrahma; that is to say, in theBrahma mantra itself and in the

reality of Rudra mediated by it.In the following pages, I willdiscuss this further.

The mantra, and only themantra, endows theconcentration that has beenevoked intentionally by meansof the lower pratyahara* withits true inalienable content.Why, and in what way? Bothquestions imply an inquiryabout which mantras have to beused by the Pasupata* ascetic in

meditation. Strangely enough,the Pasupatasutras* (PS 1.17;5.21 and 22) enjoin only thethird and fourth Brahmamantras, which, at the verysame time, are identical with thethird and fourth invocations ofSiva* in TA* 10.43-47,respectively. There can be nodoubt that these two mantrasare not to be understood here asexamples but to be consideredas enjoined for contemplation.

Naturally, it must be leftundecided whether thePasupata* ascetic could not anddid not also utilize the otherBrahma mantras, as it werefrom a personal urgeall themore so since, in precisely thesame way, a particular mantra,omkara*, was designated forthe "higher contemplation."

The two Brahma-mantrasenjoined for the lowercontemplation are the so-called

bahurupi* (add rc*), which isthe mantra of Siva* as Aghora(see Kaundinya* 39, 16f.), andthe raudri* gayatri*, which isthe mantra of Siva* asTatpurusa* (39, 9). Why arethese two, in particular,enjoined for meditation? Mostprobably, the reason is to befound in the historical form andin the particular contents of theSaiva* tradition ofmeditation,13 a tradition to

which the linguistic form andthe theological content of thesetwo mantras seem particularlyto conform.

I will analyze these two brieflywith regard to their function inmeditation. The mantracorresponding to the Aghoraform of Siva* is "To thenonterrifying, to the terrifying,and to the more terrifying, ohterrifying, to all, oh Sarva*, toall forms of Rudra, to thee be

homage!"14 The ductus of theinvocations is unmistakable.The datives rise gradually fromthe enumeration of the threegroups of the forms ofSiva*namely the non-terrifying,exceedingly peaceful, gracegranting15 forms; the terrifying

ones that are not benevolentand are unappeased; 16 and thethird that delude the souls17tothe mention of "all forms ofRudra" and on to the dative ofthe personal pronoun of thesecond person that,Kaundinya* says, evokes Siva*as the unique god who is theground and cause of everything(Kaundinya* 91,7).

The true dynamic of the Aghoramantra, which is decisive formeditation, reveals itself in theformula of worship, namas te:Kaundinya* (53, 16f.) says thatnamas means offering one'sself (atmapradane*) andworship (pujayam* ca). Hecomments upon the use of thisword in the mantra in thefollowing manner: "As onewho is impelled to [that] in hisown self (atmaprayuktah*),

[he says] 'namas'" (Kaundinya*91, 7). By expressing worship,the Aghora mantra meditatesthe meditative subject in theattitude of self-offering inworship; that is, according tothe Pasupata* understandingof yoga, in the union of thesoul with god. By mentioningthe totality of the many formsof god, which are included inthe intentional relation by theuse of the dative, this self-

offering in worship solidifiesitself as an unconditionalcommitment to god in the fullcomplexity of his reality thatreveals itself in the superiorabundance of hismanifestations or, as it isdesignated by Kaundinya*through a technical term, in hisvibhuti* (91, 4f.).

Furthermore, the linguisticvalue of the Aghora mantradeserves attention. Its meaning

is not conveyed by aproposition articulated andbased on rational reflection butby "indications" of god. For itis not that these manifestationsof Siva*, mentioned in themantra, are predicated as being"his" manifestations, rather theyare juxtaposed as his"indications" against thedecisive dative "to thee," sothat, as evocations juxtaposedagainst that very reality, they

merge in the concrete identityof Siva*. They are nothing buthe himself. In these evocationshe himself, in the manifoldnessof his vibhuti*, is encounteredas the real object of devotion(bhaktih*) and worship(puja*).

In the Tatpurusa* mantra (i.e.,the raudri* gayatri*),however, we come across aninverted mediation of god, "Wemake the Purusa* [of these

manifold forms] the aim of ourknowledge. We contemplateMahadeva*. May Rudra impelus to that!"18 This is thewording of the mantra that is animitation of the Vedic Gayatri*and that also is meant tosubstitute for it, in its emotivevaluation.19 It no longermediates god in the abundanceof the different manifestationsconstituting his vibhuti* but inhis uniqueness as substratum of

these forms (cf. Kaundinya*107, 8ff.). "In so far as he[sustains and] directs all theeffects, e.g., knowledge; etc.,while pervading them(vyaptadhisthatrtvam*),fulfilling (puranam*)characterizes him; insofar as hehas the power to create aninfinite number of bodies etc.by will, the nature of beingPurusa* (paurusyam*)characterizes him" (RT* 11,

18f.). Such is the Ratnatika's*theological interpretation of theword purusah* as acharacteristic of Siva*.Kaundinya* expounds inaccordance with Nirukta 2.3and TA* 10.3 "because of thenature of being a Purusa* andbecause of fulfilling, he is[called] Purusa*. The nature of

being a Purusa * characterizeshim, because he abides in manyforms. The nonterrifying formshave him as their [supporting]being" (Kaundinya* 107, 12f.).

The decisive elements of thismantra, which mediates thecontent of meditation in thesense of the higherpratyahara*, are therepresentations of Siva* as

Tatpurusa* and Mahadeva*. Itis not possible here to develop,even approximately, thecomplete horizon of thePasupata theology implied bythese two names of Siva*. Thetheological dimension of theword Tatpurusa* has alreadybeen explained briefly. Therepresentation of Siva* asMahadeva*, however, must beindicated at least. LikeTatpurusa*, it has to be

understood in a strictlytheological sense. Kaundinya*comments on the nameMahadeva* as follows:

Here 'mahan*' is [used] in thesense of "more excellent than"(abhyadhikatve). He is moreexcellent than all souls, he issupreme and surpasses [them].He is rsi*, i. e., the one rulingover every effect,20 he isvipra, i. e., having jnanasakti*,21 he is adhipati, i. e., beingthe overlord.22 We will

explain his being-Sadasiva*and his being-more-excellent-than [later on].23 [When it issaid] deva [it refers to] the rootdiv in the sense of playing....Playing indeed, the ExaltedOne, produces the threefoldeffect, that is knowledge, theelements of worldy existenceand souls, helps them andmakes them perish again.24(Kaundinya* 14, 18-23)

In the horizon of the theologicalbelief implied by these names,

these two representations ofSiva* (that is, Tatpurusa* andMahadeva*) serve as the centralelement in the mediatingstructure of the Tatpurusa*mantra. They mediate god, whoabides as inner controller(adhisthata*) in allmanifestations of Siva* andwho is to be encountered, notin the sense that they wouldliterally contain assertions aboutthis god, but in the sense that

they contribute to an horizon ofexpectations to be fulfilled bythe reality of the object to beencountered. The meditatingsubject knows of this realityfrom his faith and he knowshimself to be on the way inorder to encounter this reality inhis experience. Kaundinya*, inthe introduction to hiscommentary on the Tatpurusa*mantra, says, "After thepracticing subject has

recognized the unity andoneness of the Exalted One,who is taught to be the causeetc., he undertakes to realize it[in his own experience](tatsadhanam*)" (107, 8f.).

The mantra expresses the wishto contemplate and experienceSiva*. Because of this, whenrecited with existential sincerity,the mantra creates anintentionality in the meditatingsubject that opens him radically

for encountering the reality ofSiva*. This openness in fact, isdeepened and intensified whenthe mantra to be recited inducesthe meditating subject tosurrender himself irrevocablyto the power and might ofSiva*, while invoking him withthe words "May Rudra impel usto that." Kaundinya* says, "Toimpel (codanam) means theassociation of the power ofknowledge and the power of

doing in the sense of 'drive me

on'," and he quotes an old glosson it, "That association of thepower to know and the powerto do, which presupposes thewish of Rudra, i.e., itsoccurrence in the souls etc., iscalled by the teachers,'impelling' (codanam)" (108,16-19).

Let me summarize these briefindications of the linguistic

content of the two mantras; i.e.,the bahurupi * rc* and theraudri* gayatri*, which areused in the lowercontemplation. According totheir linguistic meaning, the twomantras form a complementaryunit in that god is mediated inhis vibhuti* or one transcendshis vibhuti* in the direction ofthe inner controller(adhisthata*). In the two cases,taken together or individually,

the one god is mediated inexperience as correlated to themanifoldness of thephenomenal world. Thus, bothmantras, together orindividually, might have beenused in meditation. Because"both [mantras] are equallyBrahma, both realize the samepurpose(tulyarthasadhakatvam*) andboth are accepted byMahesvara*

(mahesvaraparigrhite*), oneshould mutter the mantrapertaining to the one (ekam* =raudri*), i. e. Tatpurusa*, orthe other, pertaining to themultiform (anekam* =bahurupi*) god, after havingtaken ashes (upasprsya*)"(Kaundinya* 39, 20f.).

Having briefly considered thedescription of the contents ofboth mantras as mediationstructures of lower

contemplation, I will return tothe text of the Ratnatika* andinquire as to the nature of theother kind of contemplation,which the Ratnatika*,following Kaundinya*, calls"higher." From the remark ofthe Tikakara*, that lowercontemplation (dhyanam*) ispracticed by means of mantramuttering while highercontemplation is practiced byway of dharana*, one could

suppose that this is thedifference between these twokinds of meditation and that,therefore, mantra has nofunction at all in highercontemplation. If one con-suitsKaundinya's* text, to which theauthor of the Ratnatika*himself refers in this context, itbecomes dear that this is not thecase (RT* 20, 12f.).Kaundinya* introduces thediscussion of the higher

contemplation with thefollowing question: "Should he,who recited the rc* (mantra)while meditating (adhiyata*),stand still (stheyam) with hismind concentrated (yuktena) onBrahma, which consists of asequence of words and sounds,or is another more subtle [formof] worship (upasana*) insight (drsta*)?" (124, 12f.).Kaundinya* answers thisquestion affirmatively by

reference to Pasupatasutra*5.24: "He (the meditatingsubject) may turn his attention[reverently] to the omkara*(omkaram* abhidhyayita*)."The contemplation itself, whichis precisely that higher form ofdhyana* of which theRatnatika* speaks,25 also issimilarly practiced by means ofdharana*, according to Sutra*5.25 for it says: "he shouldperform the fixing in his heart

(hrdi* kurvita* dharanam*)."

Here one sees dearly that thedistinction between the twoforms of contemplation cannotbe found in the fact that thelower contemplation is broughtabout by means of mantramuttering and the higher one bymeans of dharana*. For, as thePasupatasutras* show, thehigher contemplation also isbrought about by means of amantra: namely, the pranava*

the omkara *. What then ismeant by dharana* in PS 5.25,if it does not replace mantramuttering in contemplation?

The twofold injunction of thePasupatasutras*first, that themeditating subject should turnhis attention reverently to theomkara* and, second, that heshould perform the fixing in hisheartserves as point of

departure for answering thisquestion. Both injunctions, infact, appear to be two aspectsof a single act. Kaundinya* inhis commentary of PS 5.24says, "The omkara*, isdetermined [by the Sutra*] tobe the object of contemplation(dhyeyatvena), but this is nottrue of [other mantras] such asthe Gayatri*" (125, 1). Hecontinues, "One shouldmeditate (bhavitavyam) while

the mind is in contact with theomkara*(omkarasannikrstacittena*). . ..Only the Omkara* is to becontemplated (dhyeyah*) andno other [mantra]." Further, inthe introduction to hiscommentary on PS 5.25 heasks, "What is the place ofcontemplation(dhyanadesah*)? In what placeis the 'fixing' to be done? Whatis to be done by the one who

contemplates?" He answers,"This is said [in PS 5.25]: 'heshould do the fixing in hisheart'" (125, 10-13). Thus,Kaundinya* takes PS 5.24 asdetermining the object of thehigher contemplation and 5.25as indicating the way of turningattention to the omkara* (cf.abhidhyayita*), namely byfixing in one's heart.

If this is correct, then the worddharana* must have a different

meaning than in the samyama*meditation of Patañjali, wheredharana* is defined as "thefixing of the mind on a specificplace."26 According to thePasupatasutras*, it is not thatthe mind should be fixed in theheart in order to mediate aparticular content of meditationor in order to attain a particularsiddhi related to the dharana*on the heart. Kaundinya* leavesno doubt about this in his

commentary on PS 5.25. Hewrites,

Here the omkara* is that whichhas to be fixed; not the atma*,but the reality of the atma* inthe atma* is that which has tobe fixed; [that is to say] whensomebody has been turnedaway from objects by means ofomkara* and is simply in astate of pure [objectlessmental]27 activity(vrttivikaramatrena*), thenthis turning away is the

pratyahara*. After havingturned away [from the objects],he should perform the fixing inthe heart; and that which heshould fix is the recollection ofthe omkara*(omkaranucintanam*). It isonly then that the focusing ofattention [on the Omkara*](adhyayanam*) becomes a[state] which endures for a longtime. Thus, the contemplationby means of dharana* is thehighest. (126, 9-13)

In order to understand this text,one must know thatKaundinya* takes the wordheart,occurring in PS 5.25, as asynonym for the word atma*(see Kaundinga* 125, 14ff.).The object of fixing is not themind nor is the mind to befixed in the heart. Rather, it isthe omkara*, in so far as it is areality of the atma* in theatma*, that is to be fixed.Therefore, the fixing of the

omkara* in the atma* turns outto be, in the terms of a spiritualpsychology, the fixing of therecollection of the omkara*(omkaranucin*-

tanam * (cf. Kaundinya* 126,12). This "recollection"(anucintanam) is not only arational "thinking about." Itimplies a volitional/emotionalopening of oneself to the realitythat, in the very act of thisopening of the subject,determines the subject in hisexistential authenticity. If oneconsiders this, then it becomesclear that the practice of the

spiritual life in which the bhaktiof the devout Pasupata* asceticis brought into meditation, hasto be located in the "act ofomkara* recollection." Thisfixing of "omkara*recollection" in the heart couldbe understood as the longingfor the presence of theomkara* in the atma* and asthe affirmation of theomkara's* presence, anaffirmation that becomes

concrete in radical devotion(bhakti) (also compare page217).

What meaning, however, canbe assigned to the omkara* inthis higher contemplation(dhyanam*)? How can oneconceive of this existentialopenness of the meditatingsubject actualized inomkara-recollection*? Whydoes the mind stand firm in thereality of Rudra as a result of

such a fixing (dharana*) of theOmkara* in the atma*, that is,as a result of the recollection ofthe omkara*? Finally, all thesequestions are implied by theprimary question of the natureand reality of omkara*.

At first, omkara* is not like thebahurupi* rc* or the raudri*gayatri* in the lower form ofcontemplation, "a brahmaconsisting of a sequence ofwords and sounds" (see

Kaundinya* 124, 12f.). It israther, as Kaundinya* says,"another word for that which isto be muttered, for example,Vamadeva*, etc."28 Thecomparison with Vamadeva*shows that the omkara* first ofall is a linguistic representationof god and not a propositionabout him. This function of theomkara* in theistic meditationis already attested in Patanjali*.The omkara* is that which

"denotes" (vacakam*) god.

The Ratnatika* deepens thispreliminary understanding ofthe Omkara* when it speaksabout the Omkara* as agunadharma* of god, bywhich the one transcendent godand primary cause of the world(karanam*) can be thought ofand expressed in the manifoldterms of language (cf. page217). But the exact meaning ofthe term gunadharma* is not

all that clear. I have not comeacross this term outside thePasupata* tradition, and thefew dues there are all toomeager. In any case, the worldgunadharma* must beunderstood to have a technicalmeaning; a meaning that isdearly circumscribed by theontology specific to this system.Therefore, I do not think thatthese gunadharmas* are divineQualitätsattribute as was F. A.

Schultz's opinion (1958, 79).According to its actual usage,the notion gunadharma*designates specificrepresentations of god that aretraced out linguistically andstructured conceptually. Inaddition, in so far as they arebased ontologically on thedivine reality, thesegunadharmas* also account forthe fact that the onetranscendent god, as such, can

be named by various linguisticexpressions and that it iscertainly god himself who isnamed, called upon, and notsimply described as possessingsuch characteristics. Therefore,I do not think it justified tounderstand the gunadharmas*as qualities of god.

For these reasons, I wouldprefer to see the conception ofgunadharma * as a specificlinguistic representation of god,a representation, to be sure, thatis based in the reality of god,but one that, as it is structuredin language, must not beunderstood as an ontologicaldifferentiating determination ofhis reality. Therefore, in thesegunadharmas*, god comes

quite properly into view in allhis manifold reality. This is notto say, however, that his infinitereality is limited, for example,by an ontological qualificationsuch that he would be manifoldin an objective sense.Gunadharma*, therefore, isthat "quality" of god whoseontological character is that of adharma; that is, a mental andlinguistic attribution, whoseontological content, however, is

nothing but the one undividedreality of god expressible byvarious attributions. To put it inanother way, the gunadharma*is an expression in languagethat declares the one undividedreality of god in its differentrelations to the world and thatis objective because it is basedupon the reality of god.

One of these gunadharmas* isSiva's being omkara*. TheRatnatika* defines this in the

following manner: "[Siva's*]being-omkara* is his only wayof being an object forcomtemplation, which is thecause of the end of suffering"29(RT* 11, 21). This can onlymean that the omkara* isMahesvara* himself in so far ashe is present as the OM*mantra in the act ofcontemplation (however onemight conceive of thispresence) and, thus, out of his

grace, effects the end ofsuffering; i. e., emancipation.

I return to the lowercontemplation practiced bymeans of the Aghora orTatpurusa* mantra. What is thedifference between thatcontemplation and this highercontemplation, in whichomkara* is the object ofmeditation? Whatever thedifference is, it does not lie inthe use or nonuse of mantras,

because mantras are used inboth cases. A remark ofKaundinya* may help answerthis question, at least in apreliminary manner. He saysthat the contemplation(dhyanam*) of the omkara*represents a "more subtle formof meditative worship"(suksmatara* upasana*)(Kaundinya* 124, 13). But, whyis meditation that uses omkara*a more subtle form of

meditative worship?

Kaundinya* does not tell usexplicitly, so we are left withconjecture. In any case, one hasto say that mantras of the lowercontemplation (dhyanam*)differ from the omkara* intheir linguistic structure. Incontradistinction to theomkara*, these mantras arepropositions, linguisticformulations of an intentionalrelationship of the meditating

subject to Siva*. They thuslinguistically mediate the realityof god only in an indirect way.Omkara*, in contrast, is alinguistically undifferentiatedsound that thus can effectSiva's* salvific presenceimmediately; i.e., without aprior propositional mediation.If this is correct, then I have toinquire again and more deeplyinto the function and meaningof dharana* for the act of

higher contemplation. Thenecessity of dharana* incontemplation that is realizedby means of the syllable OM*is theological. This is becausethe syllable OM* is the "being-an-object for contemplation" ofgod himself without requiringany mediation by sentencemeaning. As such,

contemplation on it is the onlysort of contemplation that caneffect the end of suffering. 30Such a presence of god, whichis no longer conveyed bymeans of sentence meaning,31can only be retained in theheart; that is, in the atma* bymeans of a radical "recollectionof the omkara*," whichbecomes concrete in surrender(bhaktih*, atmapradanam*)

and worship (puja*) (see page215).

The following seems to bebasic for the evaluation of thecontemplation of the omkara*as "higher" and as a "moresubtle form of meditativeworship" (suksmatara*upasana*): While the presenceof god is mediated by mantrasin all cases, the various formsof mantra meditationsuccessively mediate the

experience of increasinglysubtle, less objective forms ofSiva's* presence. Thecontemplation begins with theexperience of god in hismanifoldness (bahurupah*) orof god guiding and, sustainingthis manifoldness(tatpurusah*), rises to theexperience of god whotranscends the multiplicity ofthe world as well as his relationto this multiplicity. Therefore,

one must say that the lower andthe higher contemplation can beclassified hierarchicallyaccording to the relativeintensity of union with thesaving god (isvarasamyogah*).Actually, Kaundinya*, too,associates the reality of Siva*"as he is in himself" with theomkara*. In spite of this,according to the belief of thePasupatas*, god in his puretranscendent reality (i. e.,

without mediation by themantra) seems to remaininaccessible to humanexperience. Consequently, thefinal, radical union with Siva*(sivasayujyam*) occurs only inthe fifth stage of the path ofsalvation; that is, at death.

As to the object of highercontemplation Kaundinya*,refering to PS 5.24, 26, and 27and in terms of the mediationstructure of omkara*, says the

following:

[When] omkara* [is said], thenthe object of contemplation(dhyeyam) is [thereby] pointedout. [When] 'rsih*, viprah*,mahan*, and esai* [are said],then it is expressed, that [thesegunadharmas*] are made intoqualities of the object ofmeditation(dhyeyagunikaranam*). [Andwhen] 'vagvisuddhah*' [and]'niskalah*' [are said], then it isexpressed that the object of

meditation is determined(dhyeyavadharanam*) [in thisway, i. e., as free from anylinguistic attribution(vagvisuddhah*) and astranscendent to any form ofbeing (niskalah*)]. (128, 13f.)

It is worth noting that all of thedenotations of god named byKaundinya* in this passage aregunadharmas* in the sense ofthe Ratnatika*, gunadharmas*that are consciously related tothe object of meditation, Siva*

as omakara*. Therefore, theycan be understood as a dynamicconception of experience of thehigher contemplation.

It would lead us too far afieldto document textually thetheological meaning of eachand every one of thesedesignations. Rsi* is Siva* askriyasakti*, (RT* 11, 21; cf.Kaundinya* 126, 21ff.), he isvipra as jnanaksrti* (RT* 11,22; cf. Kaundinya* 127, lff.),

he is mahat as the substratumof

them (RT * 11, 22f.; cf.Kaundinya* 121, 4-7), but he isesay* as the one who alwaysand everywhere (RT* 11, 23f.;somewhat differentKaundinya* 127, 7-9) has anunchanging nature, he isvagvisuddha* as the one whotranscends all propositionsmade possible by thegunadharmas* (RT* 11, 24ff.).Kaundinya* relates all of these

representations of Siva*,manifest as they are inlanguage, to the manifestationof Siva* as omkara*, which isdecisive for meditation andtherefore also for humansalvation. This means that themodel of experience of thehigher contemplation proceedsfrom the omkara* as singleobject of contemplation, to thefour representations understoodas "qualifications" of god,

which are mediated by theOmkara*, and finally to thereality, namely vagvisuddha*and niskala*, that is theomkara* itself in so far as ittranscends its own reality as agunadharma*.

I turn now from the concreteprocess of Pasupata*meditation to the morephilosophical question of thefunction of mantra. If one isimpartial, one must admit that

in terms of content the mantrabrings nothing more tomeditation than what thebelieving Pasupata* wouldalready bring along as aconviction of faith. If hewanted simply to meditate on acertain content of faith, hecould do so with any numberof mental and linguisticconstructs.

This observation is importantbecause it shows that the

meditation in which mantras areused has nothing to do with theappropriation of truths of faithand, moreover, nothing to dowith the deepening oftheological insights throughsome meditative experience.For all that, one needs nomantra. If one recalls that,according to Kaundinya*,mantra muttering has thepurpose of removing adharmaand of bringing about the purity

of mind and character (see page208), and if one further recallsthat Kaundinya* designated thecontemplation of the omkara*in contradistinction to the lowercontemplation as "the moresubtle form of meditativeworship" (suksmatara*upasana*), then one dearly cansee the actual purpose and theactual nature of thecontemplation practiced bymeans of mantras: It is basically

worship that is realized ascontemplation. That is why themeditating subject must be purein thought before he iscompetent for contemplation inthe true sense of the term.32 Inregard to the contents, a mantradoes not introduce anythingnew into contemplation, but ittransforms the possibility oftranscendental experience intothe actuality of an event.Though he is ever known and

affirmed in faith, the meditationof the mantras effects an actualencounter with god.

The contemplation realized bymeans of mantras is basicallyan existential act in which onereverently disposes oneself totranscendence, but it does notconcern pious sentiments andspiritual experiences. To besure, it also concerns them, butthis is not the essential characterof the contemplation that

requires the use of mantras.And, in so far as the mantraactually makes god present asan event, the sacramentalcharacter mentioned at thebeginning of this essaycharacterizes mantras and

the meditative worshippracticed with their help.Whether this sacramentalcharacter arises from ''wishfulthinking" or whether it involvesan objective reality, is aquestion that can be left asidehere. We must say only that tomake possible an experience oftranscendence requires not onlythe transcending of the humanspirit and the a priori model of

experience structured inlanguage but, at the same time,a mediation that is a real event.Only by means of such amediation can transcendencebecome the horizon for anencounter in which the personactually and responsiblybehaves in the face of theabsolute meaning of hisexistence (Dasein).

Such a mediation oftranscendence arising in an

actual event, one that goesbeyond the mythic mediationthat can be accomplished byevery linguistic expression oftranscendence, belongs to themantra and only to the mantra.In contemplation, the mantra isthe only reality that is dearlydelimited and set in a certainpoint of time. Therefore, italone is capable oftransforming the mythicmediation of transcendence

immanent to it into an event.This is true, provided, that whatis mediated has atranssubjective nature. Thisinherent transsubjectivity ofwhat is mediated (i.e., itsmediation as something actuallyencountered, a transsubjectivitythat occurs in every genuinemediation) is proper to themantra only on the basis of theconviction that the mantra notonly has the capability of

mediating an insight but alsothe power to make thetranscendent present to thesubject in a fully effectivemanner. 33

Now I come to the last sectionof this essay, where I willattempt to authenticate thenotion of the effective power ofmantra according to the serf-conscious articulation ofPasupata* belief and to make ittheologically explicable.

Because of the lack of textualevidence, I can prove this onlyby way of suggestion. It iscertain that, according to thePasupata* doctrine, mantra notonly has a sense and meaningbut also an effective power.How else could the Ratnatika*say that the mantra brings onlyharm (dosah*) to him who usesit without the appropriateattitude. Moreover, how couldthe mantra effect the

purification of the mind and theremoval of adharma,whichindeed the Pasupatas* believeto be the case? Kaundinya* alsoaccords the mantra an effectivepower when he says, forexample, that the third andfourth Brahma mantras bringabout the same fruit(tulyaphalasadhanatvam*).

According to Pasupata*theology, such effective poweris not inherent in the mantra

due to its own nature, nor canone treat it as a sakti* of Siva*.On the contrary, it seems to getits effective power only by apositive act of Mahesvara*. It isin this sense that Kaundinya*,in order to establish why bothBrahma mantras have the sameeffectiveness, says that they aremahesvaraparigrhita*,"accepted by Mahesvara* andmade his own" (39, 21). Heexpresses the same idea with

respect to the many forms ofSiva* named in the Aghoramantra. They, too, aremanifestations accepted bySiva* and made his own.34Therefore, one can assume thatthese mantras, just like Siva's*many manifestations, aresustained in their

effectiveness by his power and that they producetheir effect owing to his sovereign savingintention. One would like to believe thatBhasarvajna * (about 900 A.D.) advocatesPasupata* doctrine in this respect when herebuts the Mimamsa* conception in thefollowing way:

The acquisition of the fruit does not result from thepower of the word (sabdasaktiteh*)would then follow that mantras, if used inaudibly ormentally, would have to be without fruit or that thealternative [of the choice] of time would have to be

absent and that they would not be dependent on aspecific injunction and intention. [But if theacquisition of the fruit] results from the power of[their] author (purusasaktitah*), then this flawdoes not occur. However and in whatever way [theauthor] establishes the convention, in that way,because of the observance of the convention, doesthe fruit [of the mantra] arise, on account of theeffectiveness which his decree ascribes(tatsamabhivyahara*); or, like a king, thisparticular deity [itself] supports the [convention],while the convention protects it. (Nbhu*

Not every being has the power of establishingsuch a convention, but only those who have the

capability of realizing wishes spontaneously(satyasamkalpata*); that is, as Bhasarvajna*says, only god himself on account of thesovereignity appropriate to his nature(svabhavikaisvaryaprabhavat*) and theMaharsis* on account of their constancy indiscipline(ahimsabrahmacaryasatyadisthairyaprabhavat*tapahprabhrtiprabhavad* va*) (Nbhu* 403, 16-17).On the basis of the structure of the mantras andtheir function in meditation, there can be nodoubt that these mantras can be traced back tonothing but the decree of Siva* himself.

Therefore, one can say further that, in usingthese mantras in meditation, Siva*communicates himself for the salvation of men.This is because, and in so far as, he aloneenables these mantras to mediate himself as themeans of salvation in an actual encounter. It isonly in this encounter that the meditating subjectopens himself up in actual worship to the godwho is mediated through the mantra. Thus, hecan become the recipient of salvation. Themantra magnifies the "mythic presence" oftranscendence in meditation in the sense of asacramental event in that the mantra gives the

experience of transcendence the dimension ofencounter and allows the positive salvificintention of the sovereign god to become anindividual event.Notes

1. The reason for this can be found in thereligious development and history of ideas ofIndia at that time. Around the middle of the firstmillenium A.D., the Samkhya* system loses itsimportance as a path of salvation, while thetheistic traditions with their theistic meditationare emphasized more and more, so that

the use of mantra in meditation had to beunderstood in a new way even in Samkhyistic *Yoga.

2. Regarding the phenomenon of languagecompare also Ybh. 266, 7-272, 5.

3. Ybh. (Vivaranam*) 79, 13: vacyavacakayor*asthitasambandhatve* tupranavarupenabhimukhibhavatisvara* itinavakalpater*.

4. Kaundinya* 126, 13.

5. Cf. RT* 6, 20 and the objection 19, 30ff.6. See Kaundinya* 39, 21f. Its realization isdescribed by the Ratnatika* in the followingway: grame va* yadi vetyadi*/

upasparsanenaksapitakalusaksapanartham*pranayamah*/ kosthyasya* vayor*gatinirodhah* pranayamah*/tatropasprsya* karanatirthakaragurun*anupranamya* pranmukha* udanmukho*va* padmakasvastikadinam* anyatamam*yathasukham* asanam* baddhva* krtamunnatam* ca krtva* sanaih*samyatantahkaranena* recakadin* kuryatkalusbhave* 'pi

cittasyatinirmalatvapadanartham*abhyasartham* nityam* kuryat

pranayamair* dahed dosan* dharanabhis*ca kilbisam*/

pratyaharena* visayan*dhyanenanisvaran* gunan*//

pranayamena* yuktasya viprasyaniyatatmanah*/

sarve dosah* pranasyanti* sattvasthas*caiva jayate*//

jalabindukusagrena* mase* masepibet/

samvatsarasatam* sagram*pranayamaikatatsamam*//pranayamavisuddhatma* yasmattatparam/

tasmat* kincit* param* na astipranayamad* iti srutih*

tad aksapitakalusaksapanartham* japahkartavyah*/ tritiyacaturthayor*anyatarasmin brahmani*prayatnaniruddham* cittam*sampurnaksaranubodhena*tadarthanubodhena* va* punahsancarayed* iti./ (RT* 12, 23-13, 8)

7. Cf. PS 1.15-20, where the akalusamati*precondition for the state of yoga caused bymeditation.8. Cf. Manu 6.72.

9. Cf. Kaundinya* 38, lf. and 39, 5ff.

10. RT* 12, 9-13: dharmarthuh*sadhakavyaparo* vidhih*/ sa dvividhah*pradhanabhuto* gunabhutasceti*/tatravyavadhanena* dharmahetuyor vidhihpradhanabhutas* caryeti veksyate*/ yastucaryanugrahakah* sa gunabhuto*'nusnanadih*./

11. Except for a few minor variant readings,these Brahma mantras are the invocations ofSiva* in TA* 10.43-47.

12. See Kaundinya* 52, 9.

13. In the Mrgendratantra* (Yogapada*1.51ff.), for example, we find a type ofmeditation whose content seems to correspondin its structure to the content of

the Pasupata * meditationthat is realized by means ofthese two mantras, even thoughthe character and realization ofthe meditation differs from that.

14. PS 3.21-26: aghorebhyah*,atha ghorebhyah*, ghoraghoratarebhyas* ca,sarvebhyah* sarva*sarvebhyah*, namas te asturudra rupebhyah*. Compare

MS 2.9, 10; TA* 10.45.

15. atisantani*; Kaundinya*89, 12.

16. Kaundinya* 89, 16f.

17. sammohakarani*;Kaundinya* 90, 4.

18. PS 14.22-24: tatpurusaya*vidmahe, mahadevaya*dhimahi*, tan no rudrah*pracodayat*. Compare MS2.9,1; KS 17.11; TA* 10.46 and

10.1,5.

19. Cf. Kaundinya* 39, 15: atraraudrigrahanad*vaidikyadigayatripratisedhah*.

20. Kaundinya* 127, 1.

21. Kaundinya* 127, lff.

22. Kaundinya* 145, 16f.

23. See Kaundinya* 146, 11:atra sada* nityam* santatamavyucchinnam ity arthah*.Kaundinya* 146, 14-16: atra

siva* ity etad api bhagavatonama*. sivah* kasmat*?paripurnaparitrptatvac*chivah*. tasmat*sadasivopadesan* nityoduhkhantah*,karanadhikaranivrttih*.

24. For the designations of godas rsi*, vipra,and adhipati, seeKaundinya* 126, 21-127,3: atrarsih* ity etad bhagavatonamadheyam*. rsih* kasmat*?rsih* kriyayam*. rsitvam*

nama* kriyasamsanad* rsih*.tatha* krtsnam* karyam*vidyadyam* isata* ity atah*rsih*. tatha* vipra ity etad apibhagavato nama*. viprah*kasmat*? vida jnane*.vipratvam* nama*jnanasaktih*. vyaptamanena*bhagavata* jnanasaktya*krtsnam* jñeyam ity ato vipraiti; and Kaundinya* 145, 16-18:patyuh* patih* adhipatih*rajarajavat*. patih* palane*,

patir darsane* bhoge ca.palayate* yasmad*brahmadin* isvarah*. pati*brahmadikaryam*. adhipatih*brahma*. adhipatir isvarah*.

25. This equation is based onthe reference of the Ratnatika*to the discussion of the highercontemplation by Kaundinya*(RT* 20, 12) and the fact thatthe higher contemplation of theRatnatika*, as well as that ofKaundinya*, is realized by

means of dharana*, whateverthe meaning of this term is inthis context. Finally, theconcept of dharana* in theRatnatika* corresponds to thesignification of dharana* inKaundinya*.

26. desabandhas* cittasyadharana* (YS 3.1). Comparealso G. Oberhammer 1977,216ff.

27. Here the term objectless

corresponds to the turningaway from worldly objects butdoes not indicate that the actsof consciousness are devoid ofcontents.

28. Kaundinya* 124,16: om ityesa* japyaparyayo*vamadevadivat*.

29. It also seems to correspond, finally, to the realityof Siva * as Sadasiva*, when one recalls theexplanation of this name of Siva* in Kaundinya*(146, 14ff.).

30. Cf. duhkhantanimittam* dhyanaikavisayatvam*omkaratvam* (RT* 11, 21. Cf. also Kaundinya*126, 12.).

31. Cf. niralambanam* cittam amudhasyadharanam*. . . . yo vidyanugrhitaya* buddhyasvam* cittam* niralambanam* ity ucyate. taya* dharanaya* nirmalikrtam

cittam* rudratattve sthapitam* sudirghakalam* nacyavate . . . (RT* 20, 8-11. For the translation, seepage 206).32. Cf. RT* 20, 13f., as well as PS 1.15-20 and PS5.20-28, respectively.

33. There is also a theistic meditation, in whichmantras are not used as mediating factors of themeditative experience of god, as shown by theexample of Bhasavajna*, mentioned earlier on page204. Such meditation seems to evolve basically froma spirituality that is structured differently and that isdetermined substantially by the conceptualreflections of reality. In this meditation, the presence

of god is not mediated as an event by means of thesacramental dynamics of the mantra but by means ofthe true knowledge of the nature and existence ofgod (Bhasarvajna* speaks about the highest as "place" of dharana*; see Nbhu* 589, 12ff.) andby means of the experience of his reality arising outof the conception of god who is known to bepresent (cf. Oberhammer 1984, 202 ff.).

34. Cf. Kaundinya* 39, 17:bahurupasyoktaparigrahesv* akaresu* vartata itibahurupi*.


Kaundinya* Pancarthabhasya* of Kaundinya*KS Katha* Samhita*MS Maitrayani* Samhita*Nbhu*. Nyayabhusana* of Bhasarvajna*PS Pasupatasutra*RT* Ratnatika*TA* Taittiriya* Aranyaka*Ybh. Yogabhasya* of Vyasa*YS Yogasutra*

Chapter 9The Pancaratra * Attitude toMantraSanjukta Gupta

Pancaratra* is one of theVaisnava* sects. It is namedand its main doctrines areexpounded in Mahabharata*XII, the Santiparvan* (MBH

12.321-22). The extant literatureof the sect is vast and spans aperiod of more than a thousandyears. Even its primaryscriptures spread over half amillennium, fromapproximately 500-1000 A.D.

They are mostly calledsamhita*, occasionally tantra(Schrader 1916, 2-22; Gonda1977a, 38-57; Smith 1975-80,vol. 1 passim).

Pancaratra* has a great deal in

common with other tantricsects, and this holds also for itsattitude to mantra. Like theother sects, Pancaratra* refersto its own scriptures asmantrasastra* (virtually, "theBible of mantra") and regardsthem as teaching mantras,meditation on those mantras,and the ritual accompanyingthat meditation; the wholeconstituting the means(sadhana*) to salvation

(mukti). Pancaratra* has certaindistinctive doctrines, especiallyin cosmology, which requireexposition if one is tounderstand its view of mantrain detail. What is mostdistinctive, however, about thisview is that for Pancaratra* thepower of mantra(mantrasakti*) is theexpression or embodiment ofgod's saving grace(anugrahamurti*). This

emphasis on God's mercy, notjust his power and majesty, isconsonant with the generaltenor of sectarian Vaisnavism*as against the Siva/Sakta* sects.

Introductory Remarks onTheology and Cosmogony

The sect believes in one all-inclusive god, who is a person(purusa*), the highest person(maha* Purusa*). He iscreator, lord, and ruler of all.

He is transcendent and alsoimmanent, permeating allbeings as their essence andinner controller (antaryamin*).He is the supreme soul(parama*

atman *) and the totality(sesin*) in which all souls arecontained. He is calledNarayana*.

Although he is one and unique,god manifests himself invarious forms to engage incertain divine activities. Most ofthese activities fall under fivecategories: self-concealment(tirodhana*, also called

punishment, nigraha), creation,sustenance, resorption, grantinggrace (anugraha) (LT 12.12;also Gupta 1972, xxvi). Thesefive, in turn, can be grouped ascosmogonic (the first four) orsalvific (the fifth).

God is self-existent, pure blissand consciousness. He ischiefly referred to inPancaratra* as Bhagavat,andthe term is interpreted to meanthat he possesses (six) divine

glories (bhaga), his divineattributes.1 These areknowledge/omniscience(jnana*); sovereignty(aisvarya*); potency (sakti*);indefatigable energy (bala); theability to remain unaffected byany change, even the evolutionof the universe out of him(virya*); brilliant and self-sufficient conquering power(tejas). The first of theseattributes, omniscience, is

primary: It is god's essence (SS2.33). The other five attributesare its effects, contained in it indormant state before theyevolve.2

Another way of expressing thesame idea is that these sixattributes of god, takentogether, constitute his Sakti*,which may be translated as hispower, potency, andpotentiality rolled into one.Obviously, this Sakti*, which is

also called Kala*, is not thesame as the sakti* which is thethird attribute. I shalldistinguish the superordinateSakti*, which is of supremeimportance in the sect'stheology, by spelling it with acapital letter. Sakti* is god'sessential nature, his personalityor "I-ness" (ahamta*) (LT2.12). So, just as god's primaryattribute is omniscience, Sakti*is said to be primarily

intelligence or thought(samvid*), and the other fiveattributes emanate from thissamvid*. Sakti* is thus ahypostatization, a concretizationof god's personality andactivity. This concretization ofan abstraction is taken a stepfurther when she is personified.In Pancaratra*, her personifiedform is called Laksmi* and sheis said in mythology to be god'swife.3

Indian philosophy posits thatany phenomenon has threekinds of cause: the efficient, thematerial, and the instrumental.In Pancaratra*, god relates tothe universe as all three. He isthe efficient cause, the agent,because his essence isconsciousness and free willthebasic definition of any agent.He is the material cause,because he is the sole realityand the source of all. He is the

instrumental cause, becausecreation proceeds through theinstrumentality of his power,his Sakti*. From this, it willreadily appear that Pancaratra*accepts the theory of causationaccording to which effectspreexist in their cause, albeit ina dormant or unmanifestcondition (satkaryavada*).

God's causal relation to theuniverse is regularly expressedin terms of his Sakti*. All

creation is considered to be aspecial state of his being(bhuti*) and a result of theaction of his sovereign will,acting in the light of

his omniscience. Thus god'sSakti * is said to manifestherself in two aspects.Dynamically viewed, she isgod's omnipotent creativeactivity, kriyasakti*. Morestatically viewed, she is godmanifest as the creation,bhutisakti*.4

The creation, or bhutisakti*,comprises all objects both

sentient and insentient. Sentientobjects (or, more strictly,sentiences) are souls (jiva*). Itis here that we understand whyGod's self-concealment is acosmogonic activity. Thesentient world is created byencompassing little bits(amsa*) of god's own self withSakti's* veiling, deludingpower, maya*. Thus, maya*, inthis system, is anotherexpression for tirodhana*.5 It

refers to the concealment ofgod's totality from the parts, sothat they imagine themselves tobe limited (anu*) in space andtime. It is also through maya*that the insentient worldevolves; its primary level,undifferentiated matter, isprakrti*. From prakrti*,evolves the phenomenal worldaccessible to our senses. As inall Indian cosmologies fromSamkhya* on, the final

product, the world of everydayappearances, is termed gross(sthula*); just above this in thecosmic hierarchy, accessible tothe senses of the advancedyogin, is the penultimate stagein evolution, the subtle(suksma*). At the resorption ofthe universe, "gross" effectsmerge back into their "subtle"causes, and so, back by stages,until matter reverts to itsundifferentiated state as

prakrti* (LT 3.24-31 and 7passim).

There are three levels ofcreation (sarga): the pure(suddha*), the mixed (misra*),and the impure (asuddha*).The impure is the creation ofthe insentient world, fromundifferentiated prakrti* downto the gross level accessible toour normal senses; it is reversedby resorption. The mixed is thecreation of individual souls by

god's self-concealment; it isreversed, as we shall see, by hisgrace. The two creations arepreceded, both logically andchronologically, by the purecreation. While everything saidso far about creation applies toall tantric sects (except for somedetails of terminology), theelaborate scheme of the purecreation I am about to describeis peculiar to Pancaratra* (seeSchrader 1916, 29-59; Gonda

1977, 60-65).

The pure creation is thecreation of gods. Gods embodyspecific aspects and attributesof god. (Thus, like Sakti*, theycould be said to representhypostatizations and thenpersonifications of theologicalabstractions.) As contrastedwith bhuti*, god's self-contraction (atmasamkoca*)into phenomena, the deities arecalled vibhuti*, because they

"diversely" or "especially" (vi-)manifest god's omniscientmight/being (bhuti*). They fallinto two categories: vyuha* andvibhava (SS 1.25-27). Somelate texts add a third category:images (arca*).6

The vyuha* gods relate to thecosmogony. The transcendent,immutable, and uniqueNarayana* manifests himselfjust before creation displayingall six of his attributes in their

full glory. This manifestationtranscends the creation and iscalled the supreme (para)Vasudeva*. The four vyuhas*head the pure creation; they arethe primal differentiated man-

ifestations of para Vasudeva *.When his creative dynamism,his kriyasakti*, comes intooperation, it is said to vibrate.At this vibration, the six divineattributes contract, becomingdormant within the kriyasakti*,and para Vasudeva* is nolonger manifest. When his sixattributes thus are in temporaryeclipse (santodita*),Vasudeva* is called

differentiated (vyuha*), incontradistinction to paraVasudeva*, whose attributesare always manifest (nityodita)(SS 2.70). The three othervyuha* deities areSamkarsana*, Pradyumna, andAniruddha. Each displays justtwo of the six gloriousattributes: Samkarsana*displays jnana* and bala;Pradyumna aisvarya* andvirya*; Aniruddha sakti* and

tejas. Each of the threerepresents a stage in thecreation of the cosmos and anaspect of the activities of thekriyasakti*. Thus, like the dualaspect of Sakti* as bhutisakti*and kriyasakti*, they have staticand dynamic aspects. Theyrepresent Vasudeva's* gradualtransition from transcendenceto appearing as the phenomenalworld. This will be elaboratedlater, when I have introduced

mantra. For the moment,suffice it to say that the fourthvyuha*, Aniruddha, creates,sustains, and in a sense also isour world of experience, grossphenomena.

The vibhhava deities are all theother aspects of Vasudeva*,such as his discus, Sudarsana*,and also the gods of mythology.Thus all gods and aspects ofgods are considered partialmanifestations of His

omniscient and omnipotentmajesty. Both categories ofgods, vyuha* and vibhava, aredescribed as sparks of lightshooting out of the centralreality (SS 5, 8), which is seenby successful yogins in trance.This central mass of light, thesum total of all the gods, iscalled the Visakhayupa*.

Before introducing mantra intothis scheme, I must concludethese preliminary remarks with

a few more words aboutbondage and liberation, as seenfrom the human point of view,or seen from the divine end,about god's activities ofpunishment and grace. Whydoes god conceal himself?Because he is the supreme rulerand guardian of moral law, andso punishes the sinner.7 Mansins, basically, through hisfeelings of inadequatcy anddesires for something not

within himself, through a lackof self-sufficiency. This is dueto a wrong idea of his realnature, the delusion of maya*.Thus, maya*, which we havealready seen to be but anotherterm for tirodhana* and anaspect of Sakti*, puts man in atransient material world andmakes him feel limited andsubject to change. Aniruddha,who is Vasudeva* at this levelof phenomena, deploys his

power (sakti* as one of the sixglorious attributes) to maintainmoral law and order (karman).

But Vasudeva* is also thebenevolent saviour; hisanugraha, his saving grace, isalways present. So, whereastirodhana/nigraha* bringsabout the mixed and impurecreations, maya*, his anugrahais manifest in the pure creation,the deities. The deities, all beingaspects of god, save man. And,

we shall see that as savioursthey are primarily mantras.Mantras are the pure creation,and at the same time they arethe means and the path tosalvation. This salvation is thesame as release from theinfluence

of maya * and of the desirewhich is its consequence. Thesimultaneous result of suchrelease is to attain Vasudeva's*highest abode (paramam*padam), which is the same ashis great presence (dhaman*),the supreme paradise ofomniscience and bliss (Gonda1967, 80-85 and passim).

How, in practical terms, is one

to attain this salvific gnosis, thisfreedom from desire, thisexperience of god? For thePancaratrin*, the answer is totalsurrender to god, prapatti. But,prapatti is not passive. Itrequires unwavering faith inGod's boundless mercy; butalso the renunration ofeverything but his service(upasana*). This upasana*consists of uttering mantras,performing the rites which

accompany them, and finally ofmeditating with one-pointedconcentration on the mantrasand the divinities of which theyare the primary form. This laststatement leads us into the heartof our subject.

Language in Cosmogony

The theory that the supremereality (brahman) is sound(sabda*) or word (vac*), theidealized essence of language,

was developed by philosophersof language and mimamsaka*thinkers. Their concept ofsabdabrahman* greatlyinfluenced all tantriccosmogonies. As monotheistsbelieving in a personal(purusa*) supreme god,Pancaratrins* did not accept thetheory that the sole ultimatereality was the impersonalsabdabrahman*. But they gaveit second place in their

cosmogony and cosmology,equating it with Sakti* in theirscheme. (This equation nodoubt was made easier byreferring to sadbabrahman* byits synonym, vac*, a feminineabstraction which can behypostatized and evenpersonified pari passu withSakti*.) More precisely, vac* isequated with God's jnanasakti*or samvid-sakti*, which wesaw to be his first and most

essential attribute. Earlier, Ireferred only to two aspects ofSakti*: bhutisakti* andkriyasakti*. But Sakti*, beingbut god in action, can beinfinitely subdivided. Whatconcerns us here is thatkriyasakti*, god's efficacy, hastwo integral aspects: god'somniscience, hypostatized asjnanasakti* or samvid-sakti*;and his free will, hypostatizedas iccha-sakti*. As soon as*

wills to create, the quiescenceof his jnana-sakti* is disturbed.This is the first polarizationbetween god and his thought.At this stage, the polarizationdoes not affect the essentialoneness of god and his nature,Sakti*, and God is still knownas para Vasudeva*. At thismoment, just before Sakti* actsto create, the whole of creation(pure, mixed, and impure)appears simultaneously, perfect

in every detail, like a flash oflightning, "/as God'sthought/Sakti* (AS 5.3-5).Thus, the first polarization is achange of state in god's jnana*from the potential to the actual,to omniscience. Seen in termsof vac*, it is a change frompara* vac*, the unmanifestform (also called nada*), topasyanti* vac*, the "seeing."Pancaratrins* also call it bindu(drop, the first crystallization)

and sudarsana* (perfect sight).Though at this stagesabda/vac*> is still a singleintegrated phenomenon, itcontains the designations(nama*) of every referent(artha), every object in

the universe. This ideal speechis imprinted on god's thoughtlike a craftsman's blueprint ofthe ensuing creation. It is god'sidea of what he is going tocreate; the way he ''sees" it, as amodern creative artist mightsay. 8

In the yogic tradition, therewere four levels of awareness,moving from the gross through

subtler awareness totranscendent unity: waking(jagrat*), dreaming sleep(svapna), dreamless sleep(susupti*), and the fourth(turiya*). Later, whendiscussing Pancaratra*meditation, I shall show howthese are made to correspond tothe levels of reality in thevyuha* theory. Thesabdabrahman* theory, too,posits four levels of increasing

subtlety ofspeech/language/word: from thebottom, they are calledvaikhari*, madhyama*,pasyanti* and para*. Sincethere are four vyuhas*, onemight have expected that thesefour would simply correspond,and at one point the Laksmi*Tantra (LT 24.8-11), which isnot always consistent, indeedmakes them correspond: nada*(which is another name for

para* vac*) is Vasudeva*;bindu (=pasyanti* vac*) isSamkarsana*, madhyama* isPradyumna, and vaikhari* isAniruddha. But this is not theusual Pancaratrin* theory. Theusual theory accepts thecorrespondence on the lowertwo levels, but higher up,things are more complicatedbecause of the theology of thetwo forms of Vasudeva*.Pasyanti* vac*, in fact,

corresponds to everything fromthe first polarization betweengod (para Vasudeva*) and hisjnanasakti* to Samkarsana*.

How is this transitionenvisaged? Vasudeva*temporarily loses sight, as itwere, of his Sakti*, so that hewants to create; in a plenumthere is no lack and cantherefore be no desire. Thusgod's icchasakti* is activated,and sets his kriyasakti* in

motion. The temporary eclipseof his omniscience, as we haveseen, is what brings about thefirst differentiation (vyuha*),namely vyuha* Vasudeva*. Theresultant release of effectivepower, the prime movement ofcreation, has several namesbesides kriyasakti*: it is calledvibration (spanda), swinging(andolana*), and breathing(prana*). These nameshighlight various figurative

aspects of creation.9

As god recovers hisomniscience and begins tocreate, he is known asSamkarsana*. Samkarsana* isthe first state of diversity, thepotential state of the diverseuniverse. At this stage, thecausal unity of the creation isstill held together, but traces ofthe diverse effects are there in adormant condition. On theother hand, Samkarsana* is the

definitive manifestation ofpasyanti* vac*.

Vac* is figuratively representedby the fifty letters of theSanskrit alphabet. The vowelsare more essential than theconsonants, because inutterance the consonants needvowels to stand on, so thevowels are created first. Thisgroup of fifty letters is termedmatrka*, the matrix or source.It is a source in the sense that

words cannot be formedwithout knowing it, but, as wehave seen, it is also the cosmicmatrix. In sum,sabdabrahman* or vac* is inPancaratra* identical with god'sSakti*, the divine personalityhypostatized as the creatrix andindeed personified as Laksmi*,Vasudeva's* wife.10

The Ontology of Mantra

So far, I have not used the termmantra in my cosmogonicaccount; but its relation to vac*, etc., is about to appear. Onthe doctrinal basis that idealspeech appeared before theworld of experience, creation isdivided into two categories: thedesignating (vacaka*) and thedesignated (vacya*). Without

knowing the former, onecannot experience the latter.This idea is not new toPancaratra* or to the othertantric sects which share it.Already, in the earlyUpanisads*, the world is saidto consist of names (nama*)and forms (rupa*). Insystematic philosophy, thissame relation becomes thatbetween word (sabda*) andreferent (artha). In Pancaratra*

theology, as in all tantrictheology, this relation is appliedto mantras and their deities: amantra designates a deity.

Deities have three forms(murti*): as personifications(devatamurti*) as symbolicdiagrams (yantramurti*); andas sound (mantramurti*). Thesonic form of a deity is amantra. Empirically, a mantra isa formulaic utterance. Asshould by now be clear, it is the

sonic form of the god which isprimary, since the designatingepistemologically and onticallyprecedes the designated. Thepower (bala) of the deityinheres in the first instance inthe mantra form and attachesitself to the other two forms byderivation. The mantras arevacaka*, the other two formsvacya* (SS Introduction, p.31). And Laksmi* is the matrixof all mantras and, hence, of all

gods.

The relation between languageand its referent, as normally isunderstood, applies only on thegrossest level, that of vaikhari*vac*. In this final stage of itsmanifestation, speech/languageis discerned as divided intosyllables, words, and sentences,and its separation from itsreferents is complete. One levelhigher, madhyama* vac*possesses samgati*, denotation,

but in an ideal form; thelanguage is not produced but isan impression on the mind(samskara*). Higher still, binduconveys denotation, though thedenoting and the denoted arenot yet separated. At the highestlevel, nada*, vac* does not yetcarry any denotation(vacyata*); there is nodifferentiation between thedesignator and the designated(LT 18.16ff.). This takes us

back to the fact that the primalvac* is equated with God'sprimal thought, samvid*, thesingle entity that evolves intoboth knowledge and thecontents of knowledge. This isalso Sakti* as Laksmi*, whothus again is the matrix of allwords and all referents.11

We have now seen that thedesignated, vacya*,corresponds to bhutisakti* andthe designating, vacaka*, to

kriyasakti*. In fact, Pancaratra*schematizes the creation of thecosmos in six ways, calledadhvan. These ways aregrouped into three designatingand three correspondingdesignated ways. Sabda*,sound, designates the adhvanof kala*, the six glorious divineattributes. Mantra designates theadhvan of tattva, whichnormally means "cosmiccategories" but in this context

refers to the vyuhas*. Pada,which here refers to the fourstates of consciousness of themeditator, from wakingupwards, designates the adhvanbhuvana, the "worlds" of

(the meditator's) experience.Laksmi * declares that of thesesix, sabda* and mantra are themost important (LT 22.13-19).Mantra is the salvific aspect ofsabda*.

The General Place of Mantra InPancaratrin* Gnosis

In Pancaratra*, salvation hastwo aspects. Though they areinextricably intertwined in the

system, they can be analyticallydistinguished. On the one hand,salvation is gnosis, realizationof one's unity with god.Historically, this is the olderaspect. It is associated withyogic tradition. On this view,salvation is achieved bymeditation. In explainingsalvation, it is therefore naturalto begin at the bottom, as thepractitioner (sadhaka*) must.On the other view, salvation is

a state of blissful communionwith god, an emotionalexperience. Historically, thisview is associated withmonotheism and, especially,with Vaisnavism*. Salvation isgranted by god's grace, and theessential requirement is totalemotional surrender (prapatti).In explaining salvation fromthis angle, it is necessary tobegin at the top with theology,as I have been doing in this

article.12

As I have briefly mentionedearlier, the combination ofthese two very disparate viewsof salvation means that, for thePancaratrin*, prapatti is notjust passive; it must make itselfeffective by service to god,upasana*. Though upasana* issometimes translated asmeditation, it is much morethan that, both because it has anemotional or, better, devotional

aspect and because it isnecessarily associated withritual action. I shall return laterto the ritual practice associatedwith mantra upasana*. But,first, I must finish clearing theway to a theoreticalunderstanding of what is goingon.

First, let me briefly take theworm's eye view of themeditator. He is to take foursteps (pada) of increasing

awareness, moving up fromgross diversity to transcendentalunity. As in all schools of yoga,the four steps are termedwaking, dreaming, deep sleep,and "the fourth." InPancaratra*, these correspondto the four vyuhas*. Thus, "thefourth" corresponds to vyuha*Vasudeva*. Topara,Vasudeva* corresponds afurther stage called beyond thefourth (turyatita*); this stage is

fusion in para Vasudeva*. Thesadhaka* meditates on god inhis sonic, mantra form. Hebegins with the mantra ofAniruddha. As Aniruddha is theworld on the gross level, herepresents the totality of thecontents of one's awareness ofthe diverse universe. Themeditator merges himself inthat mantra until he has realizedhis identity with it, in otherwords with god at the lowest

level, that of mundanephenomena. The process isthen to be repeated atsuccessively higher levels.Thus, the sadhaka* movestowards the primal unity of thecontent of his awareness andthe awareness itself.13 Thismove from diversity to unity isalso understood in terms ofvac/sabda*, for awareness isidentified with the designating(vacaka*) sound and, thus,

relates to its contents as thedesignated (vacya*).

The sadhaka *, thus, aims stepby step to reverse the processof creation and return to theprimal unity. WhenSamkarsana*, Pradyumna, andAniruddha stand for thesemystical stages of yogicexperience, they are knownrespectively as Acyuta, Satya,and Purusa*.14 In Pancaratra*doctrine, these names designatethe three vyuha* gods as merely

potential effects dormant intheir source and locus,Vasudeva*. The sadhaka's*progress thus reabsorbs effectsinto their causes. The mantras,the sonic forms of the gods,give the sadhaka* the mentalsupport (manasalambana*)that he needs to achieve this:They are what he has toconcentrate on (LT 22.16-20).The pure creation, taken as awhole, is god's embodied grace,

his anugrahamurti*. Sinceeffects are reabsorbed into theircauses, it is equated withVasudeva*, both in his partand vyuha* forms; hecomprises Acyuta, Satya, andPurusa*. Vasudeva* is signifiedby his "single-formed"(ekamurti*) mantra (SS 2.71-72; 5.68). Of course, this is nodifferent from Sakti/Laksmi*>;she too is god'sanugrahamurti*. With talk of

God as the saviour, I returnonce more to the bird's eyeview of salvation.

God's Saving frace in His FourEmanations

A Pancaratrin* sees god as thealmighty lord who, with the aidof his intrinsic energy, hasfashioned individuals (jiva*)from his own serf, but he hasmade them limited in everysense. While god is

omnipresent, the jiva* is oflimited dimensions (anu*);while he is omnipotent, thejiva* is limited in action by thepredetermined cosmic law ofkarman (niyati); while he isomniscient, the jiva* has onlyvery limited knowledge. Theselimitations involve theindividual in a perpetuallytransient and changingexistence, samsara*. The oneaim of a Pancaratrin* is to get

free of this involvement.Freedom is achieved when heattains a clear understanding ofhis own essential nature, ofgod's nature, and of the natureof the world of experience, anunderstanding that amounts tograsping that the three areessentially identical. But, he canachieve this understanding onlythrough divine intervention.15The sovereign God mayinterrupt the operation of his

cosmic laws and suspendtirodhana/maya* for hisdevotee. This divine grace isavailable only to the devoteewho has totally surrenderedhimself to god's mercy(prapanna) and proved hisdevotion by incessantly andardently performing god'sservice (upasana*), followingthe path of monotheism(aikantika* marga*).

God is so merciful that he takes

measures for the salvation ofsouls even as he effects thecreation. The three primaldivine emanations(Samkarsana*, Pradyumna, andAniruddha) are endowed withsalvific functions. The latecommentary on the Sattvata*Samhita* by Alasimha* Bhattagives a coherent account ofthese three vyuha* gods in thePancaratra* scheme ofsalvation (see the commentary

on the SS, Chapter 5).

Samkarsana*, as the divineknowledge and indomitableenergy (jnana* and bala), isthe embodiment of thePancaratra* scriptures (mantra-sastra*)

and its religious discipline; inother words, of sastra * andsadhana*. Pradyumna, thedivine sovereignty and heroicpower, incorporates theknowledge and wisdom derivedfrom the sastra*. He is theintelligence (buddhi) ofSamkarsana* (LT 6.9). Heilluminates the significance ofthe sastra* and, in particular,reveals to the sadhaka* the

underlying meaning of a mantra(AS 5.21; LT 23.2). To make amantra work its effect, asadhaka* must realize itsmeaning; Pradyumna throughhis infinite grace provides thisessential insight (AS 5.22-23).

The last vyuha*, Aniruddha, isin a sense the most important,for he makes the sadhaka's*goal (sadhya*) available tohim. In Pancaratra*, bhakti is atwo-way emotional transaction,

a sharing of feeling with god.God, the object of adoration,has to be in direct contact withhis devotee. In his transcendentform as Vasudeva*, god isbeyond the empirical world ofthe senses. Aniruddhaembodies the divine energy andresplendence (sakti* and tejas)and is said to be the divine ego(ahamkara*) within the worldof the senses. His is the form inwhich the devotee envisages his

god. In other words, Aniruddharepresents all the forms (suchas images) in which the devoteefinds god accessible (sulabha)to his senses. Thus, it isthrough Aniruddha, that godgrants his devotee attainment ofthe goal of his sadhana*, directexperience of his presence (AS5.23-25; LT 3.58-60; 6.6-12).

Pancaratrin* Practice and ItsGoals

Practice (sadhana*) consists inservice (upasana*) of god,aiming to please him. This, inturn, has two compnents:meditation and ritual. InPancaratra*, as in other tantricsects, these two are neverdissociated but always arepracticed together. In this sect,meditation is called the internalsacrifice (antaryaga*) andritual the external sacrifice(bahiryaga*). The early

scriptures say that the internalsacrifice is the more important;in this they reflect the yogictradition. Over the centuries,however, this tradition fadedand the emphasis on meditationwas gradually lost.

So far, I have spoken ofliberation as the one goal of thePancaratra* sadhaka*. This isnot untrue to the spirit of theearly texts. All tantric practice issaid to have the two goals of

mukti and bhukti,liberation andenjoyment (won by the use ofpower). However, thePancaratrin* scriptures appearuneasy with bhukti; they admitit into the scheme of things butpiously interpret it asinstrumental to bringing aboutrelease. It does this by makingthe sadhaka* satiated withmaterial prosperity; his disgustwith the pleasures of the sensesleads to detachment and, by this

route, to a profound and lastingsurrender to god. ThusPancaratra* groups the mantrasand their gods under two heads.The higher class leads to mukti;the lower ones have morelimited aims and effects,leading variously to prosperity,to physical safety, and to aspiritual purification

which makes their practitionerworthy of the higher kind (LT22.3; SS 1.26-27).

Classification of Mantras

The alert reader may havenoticed that, so far, I havereferred specifically only to themantras of vyuha * gods andsaid nothing of the mantras ofvibhava gods. Though there areexceptions, one can broadly say

that the higher class of mantrasmentioned in the previousparagraph are those of thevyuha* gods, the lower classthose of the vibhava gods. Inother words, it is usually thevyuha* gods who are meditatedon for mukti, the vibhava godsfor bhukti or as a preliminarystage before entering on thepractice which aims at fullrealization.

As the Laksmi* Tantra says, all

mantras are addressed toSakti*, but only those whounderstand Sakti* as the cosmiccreative force, kriyasakti*,realize this fact. Those lessunderstanding receive fromtheir gurus mantras to suit theirlevel of ability, mantrasostensibly addressed to otherdeities. Only the advanced arestraightaway given Sakti*mantras (LT 18.46).

Mantras are classified as higher

or lower according to theirplace in the pure creation. Wehave seen that there are threecategories hierarchicallyordered: para, vyuha*, andvibhava. Vyuha* and vibhavacan be subdivided. Eachvyuha* deity represents acomprehensiveness(vyapakata*), which becomesfragmented into variousaspects. Each aspect isrepresented by a sub-vyuha*

deity (vyuhantara-devata*);there are twelve of these, threeto each vyuha*. The vibhavadeities, who are grosser andmore limited, are divided intosuch groups as the tenavataras* of Visnu*. As avyuha* deity can stand for allhis vyuhantaras*, the visakha-yupa* can stand for the mantrasof all the vibhava deities.

Mantras can also be classifiedby their power, as explained

earlier. The vibhava mantrasbestow bhukti. The vyuha* andvyuhantara* mantras areprimarily for mukti, thoughthey also give bhukti as a byproduct. Vasudeva's* mantra,the para mantra, leads to muktialone (SS 19.179; see also thecommentary).

A third way of classing themantras is by the stage of sonicmanifestation to which theybelong. This classification,

however, applies only to seedmantras (see next section).Thus OM* is a prakrti* mantra;in this context prakrti* means"source." Other seed mantrasare said, at the same time, to bethe evolving source and theevolved effect (prakrtivikrti*).The third and lowest categoryconsists of mantras belongingto the gross world (vikrti*) (LT18.47-51; 24.48; 41.33).

It will be readily apparent that

these three modes ofclassification are merelyalternative ways of articulatingthe same hierarchy. Thesadhaka* graduates fromgrosser to subtler and morepowerful mantras as heprogresses intellectually andspiritually, until his guruinitiates him into the highest,the para,mantra.

Analysis of the Mantra

Any mantra which a sadhaka *receives from his guru can beanalyzed into two or into fourparts.

Its two parts are the seedmantra (bija* mantra) and thepada mantra. The seed is saidto be its soul and the rest itsbody. Unlike the souls ofindividuals, the souls of

mantras are neither influencedby maya* nor limited by timeand space (SS 9.20-30).

Its four parts are bija*, pinda,samjna*, and pada. These aresaid to correspond to the foursteps (pada) of the soul(waking, etc.) (LT 21.11). Abija* is a monosyllabic sound.It may contain one vowel ormore (as in a diphthong) or oneor more consonants plus avowel and always ends with the

pure nasal sound, called bindu(SS 9.20-21; LT 21.12). Apinda* (mass) is a duster ofconsonants, often connectedwith vowels, inserted betweenthe bija* and the body of themantra (cf. the Saiva/Sakta*kuta-mantra*). The samjna-mantra* is the reverent addressto the diety, who is in thedative, with some such word asnamas; it is preceded by OM*.A pada-mantra is a complete

sentence expressing a prayerand praise of its deity (LT21.13-14). It seems that the lasttwo parts can overlap.

A complete mantra, which aguru imparts to a sadhaka*with solemn ceremony, musthave all four parts. It is calledthe sadhaka's* mula-mantra*or ista-mantra* while it is thefocus of his practice. Heconjures up a visual image ofthe mantra's deity by analyzing

his mantra and applying itsparts to the parts of thevisualized deity. This leads us,at last, to practice.16

The Guru

Practice begins, at every stage,with initiation by a guru. Theguru is the point where thebird's eye view and the worm'seye view of salvation meet, forhe is the living incarnation ofgod's grace and the point where

any devotee first makes directcontact with the divine. Theguru is god incarnate. TheLaksmi* Tantra (13.34) assertsthat a guru, irrespective of hissect or creed, is a manifestationof Sakti's* aspect as savior. Heis like a doctor who knows theexact treatment for his disciple'sailment, the bondage ofsamsara*. He holds the key tothe mysteries of the scriptures;he is the repository of the secret

lore of the mantras and theirapplications in ritual andmeditation. For he is in thepupillary tradition of the sectand, as such, knows theesoteric tradition which is onlyorally transmitted. The aspirant,therefore, must be initiated intothe sect before he can beentrusted with this secretknowledge. The guru is asuccessful sadhaka*, a siddha,who has attained union with

god's loving personality byidentifying himself with Sakti*by means of his mantra and itspower. Since Sakti* is theessence of all mantras, he cannow handle any mantra.

Identification With One'sMantra

Pancaratra * sadhana* is thepath of mantra(mantra-marga*); the Laksmi*Tantra says that a person whodesires salvation must alwayspractice upasana* of Sakti's*mantra-body (mantramayi*tanu). He must regard hismantra as personified, with a

body (ksetra*) and a soul(ksetrajna*). All the theology,philosophy, and liturgy helearns from his guru, he is toapply to his mantra and itsrelation to his goal, salvation(LT 17.50; 18.2-8). He can onlyfollow the prescribed upasana*of his mantra when he hasritually and intellectuallyidentified himself with it; asPancaratra* scriptures put it, hemust identify his ego with the

mantra's ego OS 11.41-42; SS17.36); that is to say, its bodyand soul. He must understandall the different aspects of hismantra and how it relates togod and himself. Though hemay glean some idea of thesematters from texts, friends, orgeneral gossip, only directinstruction by a guru canprovide even the most eruditeaspirant with understanding andexperience of the mantra's

palpable divine personality.

The guru teaches his pupil theideology by concretizing theconcepts in ritual and even bymaking him act them out. Thus,abstractions become real forhim. To enable the novice tounderstand how god ispersonally present in the mantraand how to identify with it, theguru analyzes its componentparts in terms of the humananatomy.

Culling the Mantra

At the very beginning of hissadhana*, the sadhaka*participates in two ritual acts,called mantroddhara* andnyasa*. The character ofmantra as god is made explicitin the rite of mantroddhara*;its character as the means tosalvation is dramatized in therite of nyasa*. The sadhaka*must master the techniques of

both, for every upasana*begins with them.

The word uddhara* meansextraction, culling. Before beingused in the rites, each mantramust be ritually made manifestfrom its sonic source, thematrka*. When the aspirant isinitiated and first receives hismantra, the rite of culling it isperformed by his guru. On allsubsequent occasions, heperforms it himself (cf. LT

23.5-12; 24.48; 41.33).

On a dean and ritually purifiedplatform, the sadhaka* draws amandala*, a cosmogram oflotus or wheel design, with itspetals or spokes pointing in theeight directions and its centerencircled by a pericarp or hub.If the mantra refers to a femaledeity, the lotus design is used;otherwise the wheel design (LT23.12). "OM*", the suprememantra representing sabda-

brahman (see later), is inscribedon the center. The sixteenvowels of the Sanskritalphabets are arranged on thepericarp or hub; the consonantsare arranged on the petals orspokes; the last nine letters, m-h, are distributed on the innerside of the circumference andthe composite-letter ksa* iswritten outside it. The guruworships this diagram anddemonstrates how to envisage it

as the manifest sab*-

dabrahman * in its seminalstate of nada*. The sadhaka*learns to imagine nada* as aluminous entity existing insidehis heart, which he imagines tobe inside two lotuses. Theluminosity symbolizes its natureas potential knowledge. Thisbrilliant nada* is visualized asconstantly pouring out thevibrating matrka*, the potentialvac* (SS 2.67-68; LT 20.9).

OM* represents this nada*form of sabdabrahman*before it is disseminated overthe cosmos. Each letter of thematrka* is in its own right amantra with a distinctpersonality. One has to add thepure nasal to it in order toindicate that it is a mantra,because the pure nasal, which iscalled bindu, indicates Sakti* inher first crystallized (pasyanti*)form and is the mantra's soul

and its energy (bala). Eachletter has one or more propernames and a fixed position inthe cosmic pattern. Both thename and the position show thespecific aspect of Sakti* whichis revealed in the letter. Theguru divulges the secret natureof the letters to his pupil beforehe starts drawing the diagramof the matrka*, so that when hecomes to teach him how toextract his mantra he knows the

designation and significance ofits letters and its position in thetotal scheme of the purecreation (suddha* sarga). Byextracting his mantra letter byletter from the body of thematrka* (vac*, visualized asLaksmi*, whose body isentirely made of the Sanskritalphabet, LT 23.13-29), thesadhaka* enacts a birth of themantra from its source. Thisstrengthens his conviction that

his mantra is a part of thetotality of the sonic emanationof Sakti*, namely nada*.

As an example, one can take themantra OM*. It is made of theletters a + u + m + bindu. Thesadhaka* first extractsa,designated Aniruddha, thepervasive one, the primal onewithin the realm of the world ofsenses, etc. Next, he extractsand adds to a the letteru,designated Pradyumna, the

irresistible, etc. Then, heextracts m and adds it to theformer two. M stands forSamkarsana*, the time thatexists just before and after theadvent of the differentiatedworld. To this sound dusterOM* is added bindu, the purenasal, which is the seminalSakti* immanent in all createdentities. But, the mantra OM*also contains the pure soundvibration or resonace (nada*)

symbolized by the sign of thehalf-moon (ardhacandra).Thus, the mantra OM* containsall the cosmic stages of creationfrom the undifferentiated to thedifferentiated but here themovement is reversed. It showsthat state of the emanatingSakti* in which all thedifferentiated world exists in apotential state; namely,sabdabrahman*.

OM* is the supreme mantra

because it represents thesupreme emanation of thedivine Sakti*. Through it, thesadhaka* identifies himselfwith Sakti* as theundifferentiated manifestsound, nada*, which representsgod still at the differentiatedpole of his transcendent being.But the meditation on OM*should lead the sadhaka* to astate of consciousness in whichhis mind is merged in the

mantra until it stops beingaware of the sound ofresonance; it reaches "the endof the resonance" (nadanta*).This indicates the state ofprimal unity and ineffability. Inthis state, all

dichotomy of the divine and hisessential nature, Sakti *, istotally submerged in a singleluminous unit, supremeBrahman (jyotis tat parambrahma). This is the supremepresence of Visnu*(vaisnavam* dhaman*), thegoal of the sadhaka's*sadhana* (LT 24.11-12).

Every initiate is to perform

these and the following spiritualexercises in imagination. But toimagine something still is not torealize it fully. The differencebetween the sadhaka* and thesiddha consists just in this: Thesadhaka* is still rehearsingwhat it would be like to realizethese identifications; while, forthe siddha,they are real.

OM* is seen here as acombination of 3 + 1, thetotality, and is used in a series

of equations. Its three letters areequated with all basic groups ofthree: the three basic vowels (a,i, u, the first Siva-sutra* ofPanini's* grammar); the threeVedas; the three varnas*(brahmana*, etc.); the threeconstituents (guna*) of primalmatter (sattva, rajas, andtamas); the three luminaries(fire, sun, and moon); the threecosmic gods (Brahma*, Visnu*,Rudra); the three worlds. All

these series are equated to thethree manifest vyuha* gods.These, then, are added to thefourth, the all combining entitysignified by the pure nasal andresonance, the two states ofVasudeva*. Vasudeva*, as wehave seen, is Saakti* in her twostates; namely, the transcendentand the immanent (LT 24.19-20). The idea of considering theworld of diversity as amultiplication of the basic three

is not peculiar to Pancaratra*;like many of its other concepts,it comes from the Upanisads*(cf. ChU 6.4-6).

The sadhaka* visualizeshimself as extracting the mantrafrom the matrka* diagrambefore him, concentrating on itas the sonic form of Sakti*.This process of visualizationapplies to the acquisition of allmantras, from OM* down tothe mantras of most limited

power, like the common spells.For even they are conducive tothe final goal of mukti, becausethey are used as the lower rungsof a spiritual ladder to thetranscendent realm of OM*,which together with its fourpada mantras forms the lastfive rungs of that ladder (LT28.74). The choice of thismantra as the basic as well asthe most comprehensive one(LT 28.72) shows the

Pancaratra* leaning to Vedicorthodoxy. The Upanisads*already regarded OM* as theessence of the Vedas, themantra par excellence (ChU 1.1.1ff.; for details, see Padoux1978a).

Physical Application of theMantra

The next step in Pancaratra*upasana* is nyasa*, again auniversal tantric rite. After

extracting his mantra from thediagram of matrka*, thesadhaka* proceeds to place ordeposit (nyasa*) it on hispsychophysical person. Asmentioned earlier, the mantrahas a form similar to humananatomy. It is divided into sixmain limbs (anga*) and sixsecondary limbs (upanga*).The first group consists of theheart, head, top-knot (sikha*),armour/ trunk (kavaca), eyes,

and the weapon/power (astra).The second group correspondsto the navel, back, arms, thighs,knees, and feet. For in-

stance, the six angas of OM *are a*, i*, u*, r*, ai, and au;and the upangas* are jnana*,aisvarya*, sakti*, bala, virya*,and tejas, the six divineattributes (kala*). Step by step,the sadhaka* deposits theangas* and upangas* of hismantra on his owncorresponding physical parts bytouching them while sayingwhat he is doing. First, he

names the mantra, then theappropriate seed mantra, thenthe relevant anga* in the dativeand the word of salute such asnamas or svaha*. The terms ofsalutation are called jati*mantras. He thus acknowledgesthe deification of that part ofhis own anatomy. In this way,in vivid concentration, hereplaces his mundane bodywith the body of his mantra. Inhis imagination, he becomes

consubstantial with his god(Padoux 1980).

A corollary and necessary codato this mental and ritual act ofnyasa* is the rite of purifyingone's soul (atma-suddhi*). Themantra is divided into itsconstituent sounds; each ofthese is then identified withSakti's* consecutive steps in thecosmic process of creation.Thereafter, the sadhaka*identifies his own soul

(atman*) with the grossestmanifestation of the cosmichierarchy. He, then, sets aboutdissolving effect back intocause. We continue to takeOM* as our example. Heidentifies himself withAniruddha (a), Sakti's* grossestvyuha* form. This, he thendissolves into Pradyumna (u)and rises from the gross to thesubtle state. This, he thenimagines to merge in

Samkarsana* (m), and he risesto a subtler and more seminalstate in the process of creation.Finally, this state, too, heimagines to be dissolved intobindu (m*). At this stage, thesadhaka's* journey inimagination towards his soul'ssource and essence comes to apoint at which he automaticallypasses from bindu to nada*and becomes merged in theessential and primal unity of

god and his Sakti*. As saidearlier, the first four stepscorrespond to the older theoryof the four states or steps(pada) of the individual soul'sspiritual flight to its originalunity with the supreme soul, theonly reality, Brahman. To thesefour steps is then added inPancaratra* (and in othertantric sects) a fifth step, whichbrings the sadhaka's* soul tothe divine presence. Having

thus reached his ultimatesource, the sadhaka* then startsretracing these steps, thereby, inimagination regeneratinghimself, now divine in bodyand soul and identical withOM*, the divine sonicemanation. In this way, thesadhaka* conforms to thegeneral tantric rule that, beforestarting to worship a deity, onemust oneself become deified(nadevo* bhutva* devam*

yajet).

Realization

At the time of initiation, theguru performs these two ritesfirst on himself and then on thedisciple, teaching him the stepsas he goes along.17 After hisinitiation, the novice haslearned the nature and functionof his mantra and the ritesconnected with it. He retires tosome holy and quiet place and

starts his daily religiouspractice, the upasana* of hismantra, which alwaysculminates in a long meditationon the mantra. He withdrawshis senses from externalphenomena and contem-

plates the mantra by mentallyrepeating it (japa) a great manytimes. He determines thenumber of repetitions inadvance. With acts of worshipand with meditation, he fulfilsthe two basic requirements of aPancaratrin *. He intensifies hispassionate devotion for andtrust in god with his worship(puja/yaga*); he sharpens hisawareness to a razor's edge and

finally achieves gnosis. Whenthat happens his experience ofhis mantra's true naturebecomes real and the identitywith it which he imaginedduring the practice is realized.He becomes the possessor ofthe power (sakti*) of hismantra. All his religiouspractice prior to this istechnically known aspurascarana* (acts performedpreviously), i.e., before

acquiring the mantra's power.The goal which was in front ofthe practitioner is now anaccomplished fact (siddha) andhe is henceforth designated asiddha.

In keeping with the spirit ofpassionate devotion and totalself-surrender, the Pancaratrin*equates the power he hasderived from his mantra withgod's grace. By acknowledgingSakti* as divine grace, he

professes his humility anddependence on god.

Pancaratra* And VedicOrthodoxy

How does a Pancaratrin* locatehis mantra-sastra* in thereligious tradition? ThePancaratra* literature as awhole reveals a pronouncedleaning to Vedic orthodoxy,17which provided mediaevalIndian literature with a comic

motif.

Pancaratrins* considered theirscriptures a continuation of theVedas. The scriptural corpusmainly consists of mantras andexegesis of the ritual in whichmantras are used. For thegrammarians and theMimamsakas*, who evolvedthe theory of Sabdabrahman*,the Vedic corpus was theSabda* par excellence. ThePancaratrins* took over not

only the concept ofSabdabrahman* but also theview that the supremeauthority, the mantra-sastra*par excellence, was the Vedicscriptures. They considered theVedas the primarymanifestation of god's sabda-sakti*, which is the same asSabdabrahman* (SS 2.67).This manifestation is coordinateto Samkarsana*, the emanationof Vasudeva's* absolute

knowledge (jnana*) andunimpeded power to act (bala)(LT 2.29). Thus, Pancaratrin*agree with the general Hindutradition that the Vedas are aspontaneous revelation of thecreator's omniscience and thatthe creation ensued accordingto their instructions. Hence, tolegitimize their own scriptures,Pancaratrins* claim that theyhave evolved directly from theVedas and are equally valid as

revealed knowledge (SS 2.5;VS 8.6). Vasudeva* revealedthis mantra-sastra* toSamkarsana* to supply sinningcreatures with a means ofsalvation. But, these scripturescan be taught effectively only toan initiated Pancaratrin*. Just asone has to undergo Vedicinitiation to perform Vedicrituals, so also one mustundergo Pancaratra* initiationto perform Pancaratra*

upasana* (SpS 16.20). Themain purpose of such state-

ments is to align Pancaratra *mantra-sastra* with the Vedas.We see a series of equationsand analogies.

1. Para Vasudeva* is ParaBrahman;

2. Para* Sakti* isSabdabrahman*;

3. Pancaratra* initiation isanalogous to Vedic initiation;

4. Pancaratra* mantra-sastra* is analogous to theVedas;

5. Pancaratra* upasana* isanalogous to Vedic sacrifice.

The term upasana* is replacedby the traditional term forsacrifice, yaga*. For actualsacrifice Pancaratra* retains theword homa.

Moreover, besides adopting agreat many other Vedic mantras

for their rituals, often taken outof their Vedic context,Pancaratra* took over twoVedic hymns, the Purusa*sukta* (RV* 10.90) and theSri* sukta* (RgVKh* 5.87), aswell as the Vedic OM*(pranava*). The LT asserts thatthe most important mantra forworshipping Narayana* is thePurusa* sukta*. God is offeredeighteen items in the worship;each item is offered while

uttering one stanza from thathymn. We have already seenhow OM* is taken to be thesupreme seed mantra ofVasudeva*. It is interesting tosee that the LT mentions thefour most important Vaisnava*mantras (''Om* namoNarayanaya*"; "Om* namoVisnave*"; "Om* namobhagavate Vasudevaya*"; andthe long mantra "Om* jitam* tepundarikaksa* namas te

Visvabhavane* namas te 'stuHrsikesa* mahapurusa*purvaja*") as pada mantras;that is, subordinate to OM*.This tendency to synthesis isalso evident when the same textadopts the Sri* sukta* for theworship of Laksmi*, thehighest Sakti*. It is better toquote the test in translation.Keeping in mind the Vedicstanza "tad visnor* paramam*padam, sada* pasyanti*

surayah* diviva*caksusatamam*" (RV*1.22.20) Laksmi* states

both of us [Laksmi* andNarayana*] are seated in thesupreme expanse of the void(parame vyomni) for thepurpose of bringing happinessto all souls; the two of usmasters served by the sages.Once there arose in our heartthe intention to find somemeans for the deliverance ofliving beings. The great ocean

sabdabrahman* is the energywhich arose from us. Then twonectarlike hymns emerged fromchurning that [ocean]; the hymnof Hari, the Person, andsimilarly the hymn of myself[the Sri* sukta*]. Each of themare related to the sakti* of theother, being furnished witheach other's sound. The hymnof unmanifested Person [i.e.,para Vasudeva*, cf. SS 1.25]has Narayana* as its seer. Theother, which is called Sri*sukta*, has me as the seer. The

five [other] mantras startingwith the pranava*, have beenalready revealed to you. (LT36.69-75)

These clear statements thatPancaratra* mantras aresubordinate to the Vedicmantras explain howPancaratra* views its relation toVedic orthodoxy.18

Moreover, for its philosophy,Pancaratra * mainly depends onthe Upanisads*. Again the textsclearly say so. The SS callsPancaratra* mantrasastra* theBrahmopanisad* (SS 2.5) andits followers the worshippers of"sadbrahman who is calledVasudeva*" (SS 2.4). TheUpanisadic* doctrine makespurusa* Brahman, which isunique and exclusive, and

places it above matter in thescheme of creative process.Theistic Pancaratra* identifiesBrahman with their supremeNarayana* but reconciles theirconcept of him as a personalgod with the immutability andexclusiveness of Brahman bygrafting on to the Brahmandoctrine the concept of divineenergy, Sakti*.19 We havealready noticed how, in otherpoints, too, Pancaratra*

syncretizes with Vedicconcepts.

The same motivation leads theSS to place the yogin, thepractitioner of Patanjala* Yoga,above the non-yogin; i.e. anonrenouncer Pancaratrin*.Again, driven by Brahmanicalothodoxy, the SS allows onlythe brahmana* initiate toworship the vyuha* gods withtheir mantras. Others (theksatriya*, vaisya and sudra*)

are not initiated in the vyuha*mantras. But, if they are totallyself-surrendering devotees, theymay worship the vyuha* godswithout their mantras.

It was this orthodoxy whichearned them a lot of ridicule.Jayanta Bhatta in his play, theAgamadambara* orSanmatanataka*, makes a Vedicsacrificer complain that thePancaratrins* have adopted thesocial behavior of brahmanas.

They even, complains the Vedicpriest, recite their Pancaratra*texts exactly as the Vedic textsare recited. Moreover, from themoment they are born theyclaim that they are brahmanasand belong to the mostorthodox segment of society(Raghavan & Thakur 1964).

The most beneficial effect ofthis tendency was the sect'sdecision to reform itself byappointing very learned and

prestigious orthodox brahmanascholars as their supremereligious teachers. The first ofthem was Nathamuni*, thesecond Yamuna*, and the thirdand most renowned,Ramanuja*. All three camefrom outside the Pancaratra*sect; but they provided whatPancaratrins* wanted verymuch to attain, a generallyrecognized system of orthodoxphilosophy to support their

theology. This system is calledthe Visistadvaitavada*, thedoctrine of qualified monism.

Conclusion

The Pancaratrin* view of thenature and functions of mantrais rooted in the common tantricheritage; its use of mantra atfirst sight seems almost thesame as that in the practice ofother tantric sects. In theideology of all Hindu tantrics,

mantra embodied god'ssovereign power and wisdom;and this view was preservedwith little change in the Saiva*and Sakta* systems. InVaisnava* tantra, however, anearly difference in emphasis ledin time to a very differentreligious orientation.

We may not know all thefactors that made Vaisnavism*acquire its

distinctive character, but thatcharacter had two mainresultant features: socialconservatism and extremedevotionalism.

The social conservatism isclosely connected to theVaisnava * vision of god. Forthem, god, as the creator andsustainer of the cosmos, is bythe same token the creator and

maintainer of universal law andorder, which includes the castesystem. It is already dear in theMahabharata* that theVaisnava* God is no detached,indifferent yogin but deeplyinvolved in human affairs.20The theory of the avatara* is anatural outcome of this ideal:God is so involved with the fateof men that he descends amongthem to restore balance andharmony to the world. This

vision of god made Vaisnavas*tend to accept Vedic orthodoxyand to respect its moral andsocial rules. They adapted theesoteric doctrines of theUpanisads*, with theiremphasis on worldrenunciation in pursuit ofperfect gnosis, to lives lived inthe world in conformity tosocial norms. Renunciationbecame a matter of innerattitude rather than external

forms. At the same time, yoginswere treated with reverence.

Vaisnava* devotionalism, too,is connected with the theory ofthe avatara* A corollary ofpassionate love for god andtrust in his protecting care isthat there should be personalcontact between god anddevotee. This view of salvationthrough emotion is, as we haveseen, very different from earlytantric soteriology. To reconcile

their emotional bhakti with thedoctrine of the power ofmantras, the Pancaratrins*radically changed the conceptof that power: It is just god'sgrace. All mantras aremanifestations of god in hispristine glory as saviour. Goddecides to make himselfavailable to his devotee in aform he can understand andapproach. God's thus presentinghimself in forms suited to the

needs of each individualrepresents His accessibility(saulabhya) (Carman 1974,173-75). Mantras are god'sforms assumed out of grace,embodiments of that grace(anugraha-murti*). Thesadhaka* identifies himselfwith his mantra in love andtrust, as he knows it to be aform of god's presence.

The Pancaratrin* scripturalcorpus was composed over

several centuries, spanning thesecond half of the firstmillennium A.D., or evensomewhat longer. In thatperiod, the concept of bhaktideveloped considerably. In theearlier texts, we find thesynthesis between the tantricgnostic soteriology, Vedicorthopraxy, and Vaisnava*bhakti, which I outlined inthese pages. But, later, theencounter with the more

intensely emotional bhakti ofthe South led Vaisnavas*,including Pancaratrins*, toadopt a neo-bhakti, which theycalled prapatti-bhakti. To theearlier threefold path tosalvation, karman (praxis),jnana* (gnosis) and bhakti,prapatti is added as a fourth,distinct path. In this path oftotal self-surrender, twomantras together assumedparamount importance. Known

as the pair (dvayam), theyexpress total reliance onNarayana* and his consort Sri*,another name for Laksmi*.With this formulation, thePancaratra* attitude to mantrareaches its devotionalculmination.21

We do not know the date ofthis final development, but it isprobably

later than the Laksmi * Tantra,a text (itself of uncertain date)which seems to stand at aboutthe point when the earliersynthesis of bhakti and gnosiswere being tilted towardsextreme devotionalism. TheLaksmi* Tantra defines mantraas follows:

mam* trayate* 'yam ity evam*yogena* svikrto* dhvanih*guptasayah* sada* yas* ca

mantrajnam* trayate* bhayat*sa mantrah* samsmrto*'hamtavikasah* sabdajaih*kramaih*purnahamtasamudbhutaih*suddhabodhanvayo* yatah*.

(A mantra is known as thesonic phenomenon whichalways saves an adept ofmantra, who through yogicpractice has totally understoodits secret purport and so isconvinced "It will save me." Itis a sonic manifestation of the

divine personality/essence,emanating from the completedivine personality, and thus isidentified with pureconsciousness/knowledge.)(LT 18.44-45)

The first part of this definitionputs the mantra on a par withthe saviour god. The secondpart reveals its efficacy to bringabout pure knowledge orconsciousness, for it is a linkbetween the sadhaka*, an

individual with limitedknowledge, and the divine,pure gnosis. What one misseshere is any mention of thepower which when acquired,puts the sadhaka* on a parwith his god. That idea isindeed conspicuous by itsabsence. The sadhaka* seeksnot for power but for god'sfavor in acknowledging thesadhaka's* yearning for himand granting the final union.

Sakti* is the mediator, 22whether in her form as a mantraor as god's wife. Her mediatingrole is illustrated in a charmingmyth current among the Sri*Vaisnavas*, the sect whichdeveloped out of Pancaratra*and was systematized byRamanuja*. It narrates the sinsand atrocities committed by ademon called Kaka* (crow),who lusted after Laksmi*, wifeof the supreme god Vasudeva*,

and harassed her. Vasudeva's*anger fell on him in the form ofa discus, the divine weapon andsymbol of indomitable power.To flee this terrible weapon, thedemon sped through the threeworlds, but it followed him,ever in hot pursuit. Finally, thewretched sinner fled back toLaksmi*, who was seated at theside of Vasudeva*, and tookrefuge at her feet. Incompassion, the goddess

looked at Vasudeva*, imploringhim with her lovely eyes.Moved, the god at the lastmoment checked his weaponand saved the sinner fromdestruction.23

Whether it reveals god's truenature or secures his mercy (aswas increasingly emphasized),for Pancaratrins*, mantra is thelink between the devotee andhis god. God created his sonicmanifestations to save his

creatures.24

Notes

1. LT 2.26-34; for anexplanation of the term bhagasee Visnu * Purana* 6.5.74.Althoush the number of thedivine attributes is usually six,the name of an attribute mayvary in different texts; also c.f.Ahirbudhnya Samhita* (AS)2.28, "He is praised asbhasavan* because he

possesses six attributes. He iscalled Vasudeva* because he isthe locus of all creation."

2. AS 2.56-61; LT 2.26,"sesam* aisvaryaviryadi*jnana* dharmasanatanah*(the rest [of the divineattributes like] aisvarya*,virya* etc,are the eternalattributes of jnana*).

3. LT 3.1, "aham* narayani*nama* sa* satta* vaisnavi*

para*" (I am indeed Narayani*[i.e. Laksmi*] the supremeessence of Visnu*).

4. LT 29.6-9; AS 3.27-33 and39. These two saktis* are alsocalled soma and surya* saktis*,respectively.

5. LT 12.13-20; here avidya*and maya* are usedsynonymously. The act oftirodhana* produces a sheathof nonknowledge encapsulating

the beings. This sheath is calledmaya* kosa* (the sheath ofmaya*).

6. LT 2.59-60 "arca'pi*laukiki* ya* sa*bhagavadbhavitatmanam*//mantramantresvarartyasat*sapi* sadgunyavigraha* / (alsothe images [worshipped by]those whose minds have been[purified being full with the]/thought of God [belong to thegroup of vibhava gods who

emanate from Aniruddha].Through the influence ofmantras and their godsdeposited on [these images],they too embody the sixattributes).

7. LT 3.13-35 "Narayana* is thesupreme Lord of all and I[Laksmi*] am His lord-hood(isata*). O Purandara, thatwhich is subordinate(isitavya*) is known as [either]conscious [or] unconsdous.

Absolute consciousnessdetermines the state of the[conscious] enjoyer(bhoktr*).... That conscious[subordinate], influenced bybeginningless nescience whichis introduced by me, becomesthe en-joyer and, on account ofits own egoism, identifies itselfwith nonconscious objects interms of the relationship 'I' and'mine.' When through theinfluence of knowledge that

nescience is eliminated, aconscious entity, havingdropped its ego-concept,recaptures my essential nature.That knowledge present in thepure creation is introduced byme as the supreme vyuha [in itsmantra form], out ofcompassion I reveal [this]knowledge [to the adept of thevyuha mantras]. Therelationship between the twocreations [pure and impure] is

that of protector andprotected.... [Although in thecreated world the individualsexperience the distinctionbetween the Lord and thesubordinate, isa* and isitavya*]this [distinction] cannot berelated to my [Laksmi's*] ownor Narayana's* essentialnature.... I create a mixedcreation [of subordinates],because I take into account thecumulative results of acts

(karman) committed by thebeings who are under theinfluence of beginninglessnescience. This karman isregarded as my instrument infulfilling my creative function."

8. Cf. AS 5.7 "preksanatma *sa samkalpas* tadsudarsanam* ucyate" (thatdivine decision (samkalpa*)isthe same as [his] seeing[omniscience], and it is calledsudarsana*; LT 18.16 and21.5 "mayi prakasate* visvam*darpanodarasilavat*" (on me[as the locus] the universebecomes visible, in the sameway as a mountain [is reflected]

in a mirror).

9. LT 5.33: "gunah* pranasya*tu spando" (the attribute ofprana* is vibration).

10. Satvata* Samhita* (SS)19.128 "tacchabdabrahmabhavena*svasaktya* svayameva hi /muktaye 'khilajivanam* udetiparamesvarah*//" (In order toliberate individuals, supremeGod Himself becomes manifest

as sabdabrahman* by meansof His own Sakti*); cf. LT 20.7,which is a copy of SS 19.128.

11. LT 18. 51. 27-28"vacakatmanamasya* tvamsamahitamanah* srnu* /suddhasamvinmayi* purvam*vivarte pranarupatah* // tattatsthanaprasangena* vivartesabdatas* tatha* / santa*suksma* tatha* madhya*vaikhariti* vivekini* // (Nowlisten attentively [I define] its

[i.e., Sakti's] nature as thedesignator (vacaka*).Consisting of pure knowledge,I first evolve into prana*. Thenthrough specific stages I evolveinto [subsequent states] knownas santa*, suksma*, madhya*and vaikhari*".

12. The former view I havedesignated the "worm's eyeview" and the latter the "bird'seye view."

13. LT 14.4-10; in fact, the formof the deity of a mantra greatlyhelps the mediator. Forinstance, Samkarsana*represents sabda-brahman's*pasyanti* state, manifest butnot yet differentiated. He alsorepresents the third step of themeditator's awareness; i.e., thestate of deep sleep (susupti*).LT 4.14 describesSamkarsana's* image as thedivine form that carries the

diverse phenomena of theuniverse as if painted on it(tilakalakavat*). When a yoginmeditates on the Samkarsana*mantra and in his awarenessbecomes identified with itsdeity he perceives that theuniverse is not differentiatedfrom his self.

14. SS 2.72; the SS says thatPara Vasudeva* is alwaysaccompanied by the threedeities Acyuta, etc.; sometimes,

these are iconographicallyrepresented together withVasudeva*, while at othertimes, they are just imagined.

15. LT 23.1-4: "ahamta*parama* tasya Saktir*narayani* hyaham //anugrahaya* lokanam* ahamacaryatam* gata* /samkarsana* svarupena*sastram* pradyotayamyaham*// punasca* gurumurtistha*samyagvijnanasalini*/

saktimayya* svaya* drstya*karunamantrapurnaya* //palayami* gurubhatva*sisyanatmopasarpinah* /tasmad* jneyah* sada*sisyair* acaryo* 'saumadatmakah*// (I am thesupreme Sakti* of Narayana*,His "I-hood." In order to helppeople I become the preceptorand in the form ofSamkarsana*, I radiate thesacred scriptures. Dwelling in

the frame of the guru andequipped with true knowledgeI, through my glance full ofsakti* and by means ofcompassionate mantras, protectthe disciples who approach me[i.e., guru]. Hence disciplesshould always regard theirpreceptor as identical withmyself).

16. For another comparablesystem of classification of themantra, see Helene* Brunner(-

Lachaux) 1963-77, 1.xxxvi.

17. One important item to learn is thehand gesture that accompanies a mantra.Such a gesture is called a seal (mudra *)it proclaims the divine sovereignty andpower invested in the mantra (SS 10.52and the commentary thereof; see alsoBrunner-Lachaux 1963-77, 1.xxxvi.

18. The LT categorically declares thesuperiority of Vedic religious practices toall other forms of religiosity.

The wise should not violate the

Vedic religion even in thought. Justas even a king's favorite, whodefiles a river which is useful tothat monarch, a source of pleasureand beneficial to the community forraising the crop, incurs the [deathpenalty] on the stake, even though hebe indifferent to [the river], so alsoa mortal who disregards the normlaid down in the Vedas and therebydisobeys my [Laksmi's*] commandforfeits my favor, although he be afavorite of mine. (LT 17.96-98)

19. Of course, this is true for all theistictantric sects who believe in qualified

monism (visistadvaitavada* one form oranother.

20. Cf. the legend of King Mandhata*, adevotee of Visnu* who wanted to holdthe god's feet; Visnu* in his gracefulfilled his desire (MBH 12.64.10-13).

21. These two mantras are (1) "sriman*narayanacaranau* saranam*prapadye" and (2) "srimate*narayanaya* namah*." K. K. A.Venkatachari briefly explains theirmeaning and importance in Srivaisnava*

theology (Venkatachari 1978).22. For an excellent explanation ofLaksmi's* role as the divine mediator,see Narayanan 1982.

23. Venkatachari narrated this storywhen teaching Pillai* Lokacarya's*Srivachanabhusanam*. This story iscurrent among the Srivaisnava*theologians as the mythology ofpurusakara*, meaning the mediator.See also Carman 1974, 240-44.

24. For the transmission of

mantrasastra*, see my article, "TheChanging Pattern of Pancaratra*Initiation: A Case Study in theReinterpretation of Ritual." In D. J.Hoens Felicitation Volume, Utrecht1983.Abbreviations Used in This Chapter

AhirbudhynaSamhita*(AS)

Ed. (2) V.Krishnamacharya, 2volumes, Adyar Library,Madras 1966. (Ed. (1) M. D.Ramanujacharya.)

Jayakhya* Ed. Embar Krishnacharya,

Samhita*(JS)

Gaekwad's Oriental Seriesvol. 54, Baroda 1931.

Chandogya *Upanisad*(ChU)

Ed. V. P. Limaye and R. D.Vadekar, Poona 1958.

Laksmi*Tantra (LT)

Ed. V. Krishnamacharya,Adyar Library Series 87,Madras 1959.

Mahabharata*(MBH)

Ed. S. K. Belvalkar, Poona1954.

Rgveda*Samhita*(RV*)

Ed. N. S. Sonatakke andC. G. Kasikar, vol. IV,Poona 1946.

Rgveda* Ed. N. S. Sonatakke and

Rgveda*Khila(RgVKH*)

Ed. N. S. Sonatakke andC. G. Kasikar, vol. IV,Poona 1946.

Satvata*Samhita*(SS)

Ed. V. V. Dviveda, TheYoga Tantra Departmentof S. Sankrit University,Varanasi 1982.

Sriprasna*Samhita*(SpS*)

Seetha Padmanabhan,Kendriya SanskritVidyapeetha, Tirupati1969.

Visvaksena*Samhita*(VS)

Ed. Lakshmi NarasimhaBhatta, Kendriya SanskritVidyapeetha, Tirupati1972.

(VS) 1972.

Chapter 10The Cosmos as Siva's *Language-Game: "Mantra"According to Ksemaraja's*Sivasutravimarsini*Harvey P. Alperwriting always means hidingsomething in such a way that itthen is discovered.

Italo Calvino

without mantra there would beneither words nor meanings northe evolution of consciousness.An Agama*

if one doesn't understand thehidden sense of a mantra, one willhave to surrender to an authenticmaster.SSuV* 2.3

Introduction

Program

The primary purpose of thisessay is to describe the functionand understanding of mantrasin that complex of interlockingsoterio-logical traditions that,for convenience, arecollectively referred to asKasmiri* Saivism*. I focusupon Ksemaraja's*Sivasutravimarsini's* (SSuV*),a representative text that offerssomething like a normativeaccount of Mantrasastra*, the

"science" of mantra, asemployed and understood inthe mature, central tradition ofKasmiri* Saivism*.1

Secondarily, this essay is anexercise in the study ofreligious language. My point ofdeparture is problematic,developed in that sort of

philosophy of religion that hasbeen responsive to the work ofLudwig Wittgenstein. I attemptto describe Kasmiri * Saiva*mantric utterance in terms ofthe categories Wittgensteindevised in his later work,especially the PhilosophicalInvestigations [PI]. Myapplication of theseWittgensteinian concepts to thestudy of mantras, in part, will

test their applicability to non-Western religious traditions. Itis my hope that this willcontribute to the growinginternationalization of thephilosophical study of religion,which is coming routinely totake cognizance of ways ofspeaking religiously not foundamong the three Semitictheisms.2 This study isaccordingly addressed to bothIndologists and philosophers of

religion.

Indological Background

During the first millenium of itsevolution (roughly between 600B.C. and 400 A.D.) the current ofHindu religious life that wasfocused on the god Siva*developed preeminently as afamily of myths associated witha particular view of the world(a prototheology), as well aswith certain social, ritual, and

iconic traditions. During thisperiod, Saivism* emerged as apopular, pan-Indian form of"Hinduism," drawing selectivelyupon the Veda as well as uponthe uncodified ritual practicesof "village India." Themythological consensus of thisgeneric Saivism* received itsdefinitive literary expression ina group of "anthologies" knownas Puranas* ("Histories"). Bythe third quarter of the first

millenium A.D., a comparableritual consensus had emergedand received expression in agroup of specifically Saivite*scriptures, usually dubbedSaivagamas* because theywere accepted as having "come''(agama*) from Siva* himself.Eventually, these authoritativetexts became the canonical basisof several more or less regionalforms of Saivism*, eachexhibiting its own practical and

theological interpretation of thecommon Puranic mythologyand Agamic* ritualism that theypresupposed. Among theseregional Agamic* "Saivisms*were the Saiva* traditions ofKasmir*, which, in spite oftheir "name," were by no meanslimited to Kasmir* but wereconnected in important wayswith the Sanskrit Agamic*traditions of the South.3

The Agamas* are

characteristically concernedwith Saivite* ritual in general:

They give instruction in the"symbolical meaning,"execution and application ofthose gestures, words, andvisible forms, through whichman while being in this worldcan enter into contact with theworld of Siva*.... [Hence they]served as the doctrinal basis ofSivaite* monasticism and asfundamental manuals forliturgies and religious

practices. (Gonda 1977a, 166,173)

Central to the ritualism of theSaivagamas* was an implicitlytheological preoccupation with"the power of Speech ... thepower of the energy

concealed in the Divine Word"(Gonda 1977a, 167). One ritualpresupposition of this concernwas mantric utterance. TheSaivagamic * traditionsinherited and developed theconviction that mantras weresoteriologically central. Theywere believed to be potentinstruments enabling one toattain that perfection which wastantamount to recognizing

oneself as Siva* (cf., Gonda1977a, 170).

The earliest specificallyKasmiri* Saiva* work isusually considered to be theSivasutras* (SSu*), in Gonda'swords (1977a, 209) a "small,obscure, and utterly concise"text of seventy-seven "verses,"which had probably been editedin its present form by the earlyninth century.4 Althoughattributed to Vasugupta, the

quasilegendary paterfamilias ofKasmiri* Siva* "non-dualism,"the sutras* may becharacterized as anonymouslike the Agamas* whoseauthority they assume. Crypticas they are, they are dearlymeant as a soteric guide toselected Saivagamas*. TheSSu* distill from theSaivagamas* those themes theunderstanding of which wastaken to be crucial for the

expeditious attainment ofliberation. They focus on thetechniques that were believed toyield a progressive(re)integration into, anachievement of "equality" with,Siva*.5 As such theynecessarily deal with mantricutterance.

Along with its sibling (stillessentially anonymous) work,the Spandakarikas* (SpK), theSSu* provided points of

departure for the centraltheological and soteriologicaltradition of Kasmiri* Saivism*.This tradition is defined by thework of four writers:Somananda* (fl. c. mid-ninthcentury), Utpaladeva (fl. c.early tenth), Abhinavagupta (fl.c. 1000) and Ksemaraja* (fl. c.early eleventh).6 Since thepublication of J. C. Chatter-ji'sKashmir Shaivism in 1914, ithas become conventional to

distinguish the literature ofthese writers from that of theirpredecessors by genre or school(sastras*). This division,however, is misleading. Thethree terms used for thispurposeagama*, spanda(pulsation) and pratyabhijna*(recognition)are not strictlyparallel: the first is literary, thesecond ontological, the thirdsoteriological. Rather than amovement from one sort of

literature to a second and then athird, one finds in the centraltradition of Kasmiri* Saivism*a linear development, theemergence of sophisticatedtheological reflection uponcertain experiential traditionsthat had been given canonical,scriptural formulation in theSaivagamas*.

Broadly speaking, theSaivagamas* along with theSSu* and SpK may be

characterized as Tantric (on themeaning of this problematicterm, see Padoux 1981). Thetheology that Somananda* andhis successors devised inresponse to this literature thusmay be classified as a Tantrictheology, a theology that soughtto elucidate the sort of religiousexperience assumed to be thesummum bonum in Saiva*Tantra. In other words, thesefigures created a theology that

was meant to give rationalaccount of those ritual andmeditative techniques that werebelieved to make possible theexperience that was the primaryraison d'être for Kasmiri*Saivism's* existence,coherence, and survival.

Ksemaraja*, disciple of theintrepid Abhinavagupta, wasmore or less

the last major Kasmiri * Saiva*author. Unlike his distinguishedpredecessor, he was more thesober theological exegete, theloyal scholiast than theinnovator. His commentary onthe SSu* is a secondary work, atreatise about liberation. Ineffect, Ksemaraja* givesmantric utterance non-mantricexposition. In his work oftheological exegesis,

Ksemaraja* has the advantageof being both a philosopher andan adept who must himselfhave employed mantricutterance for the achievementof his own spiritual goals. TheSSuV* thus providessomething of a privilegedvantage point from which toexplore mantric utterance asone form of Hindu religiouslanguage. Understanding howKsemaraja* understood mantric

utterance may then facilitate ourproposing an interpretation ofmantric utterance in nonmantricterms accessible to the twentiethcentury scientific mind.7

Philosophical Background

In the past century, academicphilosophy increasingly hascome to focus on the analysisof language and the context ofits use. Several movementsgrowing out of this "linguistic

turn" thus potentially providetools with which the systematicproblems in the study of mantramay be addressed. I draw uponthe Wittgensteinian traditionbecause I believe that itprovides a useful point ofdeparture for the description ofmantra. Wittgenstein's lateworksthe posthumouslypublished PhilosophicInvestigations (1953), OnCertainty (1972), and Zettel

(1967b)may be read assketching out the grounds for atypology of linguistic uses.8They suggest a strategy fordiscriminating among thedifferent ways in which wordsare used that can help establishwhether a peculiar sort ofutterance, such as a mantra,makes sense or is merelygobbledygook. In other words,Wittgensteinian categories mayprovide a philosophical

vocabulary in whose terms onecan establish whether a givenmantric utterance should countas linguistic; whether it hasmeaning, reference, and point;and, if so, what are themeaning, reference, and point.9

This essay responds to thechallenge to deal with mantrasystematically and rigorously. Itis a complement to the worksof McDermott (1975) andWheelock (1980, 1982), like

whom I presuppose thatmantric utterance countsgrossly as both linguistic and"religious." I propose to employa certain set of tools borrowedfrom Wittgensteinian thoughtbroadly conceived in order tocontextualize as precisely aspossible the phenomenon ofmantric utterance, asKsemaraja* reports it, withinthe broader universe of Hindureligiosity.

Students of Wittgenstein whohave dealt with his "critique oflanguage" are by no means inagreement about itsimplications. At least threecurrents have arisen in responseto this strand of Wittgenstein'sthought. One, typified by PeterWinch's (1976) The Idea of aSocial Science is sociological; asecond, typified by the work ofD. Z. Phillips (1970), istheological (i. e., Christian); a

third is that of the philosophyof religion. I shall draw uponthis third sort of response todelimit the problem to

which this essay speaks. Fororientation to Wittensteinianphilosophy of religion, I utilizea recent study, Patrick Sherry's(1977) Religion, Truth andLanguage-Games. 10

Relying in part on Sherry'sanalysis, in the next section ofthis essay, I discuss theproblem in whose terms thisinquiry is framed. The body of

the essay is an exegetical studyof the "doctrine" of mantras inthe SSuV*. In the first portionof my exegesis, I describe thesociological dimension ofmantric utterance. In the secondportion, I describe theepistemological dimension ofmantric utterance and discussits theological implications. In avery brief conclusion, I suggesthow this Wittgensteinianapproach to Kasmiri* Saiva*

mantra might cast light on thenature and variety of religiouslanguage as such.

The Problem

Wittgenstein On Language

In his early work, especially inthe Tractatus (T), Wittgensteinunderstands language to be ameans of representing thenecessary form of the world.He relegates thereligiousindeed, the entirety of

human valueto the realm of the"unsayable" or "mystical."11While formally allowing for apositive evaluation of thereligious, this view does notinvite the philosophicalexegesis of religious language.In PI, in contrast, Wittgensteinbegins from the observationthat representation is only oneamong the many functions oflanguage. To help in the parsingof the variety of linguistic

functions, Wittgenstein coinstwo enigmatic technical terms,language-game and form oflife.12 Attempts to develop aWittgensteinian philosophy oflanguage, to a great extent, havebeen stimulated by the desire tofathom the meaning and extendthe application of these terms.In philosophy of religion, thishas helped focus attention onthe nature and coherence ofreligious language.

Wittgenstein asks, in Toulmin'swords, "by what procedures domen establish links betweenlanguage and the real world?"(1969, 67). To answer thisquestion, he directs attention tothe different ways in whichpeople use words. "Anylinguistic expression ... [heobserves] acquires a linguisticsignificance by being given ause in human life" (1969, 67).Meaning follows use; use

grounds utterance in itsimmediate context, humanbehavior.13 The countlessdifferent ways in whichlanguage is used (die unzähligeverschiedene Arten derVerwendung) (PI 23) conveymeaning because they areconstituted in activity; "alllanguage is meaningful, onaccount of being einBestandteil der Handlung"(70).

The question is How doeslanguage work? Wittgenstein'sanswer is threefold. Theexplication of language-gamesleads one to consider forms oflife; their explication leads oneto the context of life überhaupt.Language-games are "units ofsense" (Finch 1977, 69) thatacquire their meaning fromforms of life. The latter are"units of meaningful action

that are carried out together bymembers of a social group andthat have a common meaningfor the members of the group"(90).

By form of life, Wittgensteindoes not refer to a finitenumber of particular cultural,no less psychological orbiological, facts. Rather, theterm directs attention to "all

social or cultural behavior in sofar as it is meaningful" (90)."Forms of life" are the"interpretive conventions" (cf.Blue Book, 24) of a particularsocial group. Since speaking isan interpretive activity"embedded in acting" (Finch1977, 93), one cannot hope tounderstand what someone saysunless one grasps itcontextually as a ''speech act."14 Wittgenstein observes that

there is no one-to-onecorrespondence between aparticular language-game and aparticular form of life. What,then, makes the countlesscombinations possible? Finch isprobably correct in suggestingthat Wittgenstein recognized a"still wider context presupposedby both [language-games andforms of life], the context ofeveryday life and everydaycertainties" (1977, 100). Finch

calls these simple andindubitable convictions"framework facts" (1977, 222).

Another way of articulating this"third level" is suggested byWittgenstein's use of the termUmgebung (alsoUmstäde)surroundings,circumstances, contextto whichStrawson (1966, 55, 62) firstdrew attention. Thus, PI 583:

Could someone have a feeling

of ardent love or hope for thespace of one secondno matterwhat preceded or followed thissecond?What is happening nowhas significancein thesesurroundings. The surroundingsgive it its importance.15

Wittgenstein seems to concludethat the coordination ofspeaking and doing dependsupon the world of humanexperience as a whole, to use aphenomenological term, upon

the Lebenswelt.16 He recognizesthat the context that makesspeaking meaningful transcendsthe individual speaker. As asocial phenomenon, languagehas a twofold character. It isfabricated by people, but oncehaving been fabricated, itassumes a kind of "objectivity"over against the individual. AsWittgenstein says, "Es stehtdawie unser Leben" (OC 559).

The concepts language-games,

forms of life, and theUmgebung of speaking areheuristic. They do not oblige usto go on a treasure hunt forforms of life hidden inmedieval Sanskrit texts. Theydo call for a particular style ofreflection. By attending to thesocial facts and the interpretiveconventions that a language-game assumes and by attendingto the wider circumstances thatthose conventions assume, one

ought to be able to map thevarious ways in which humanbeings live verbally in theworld. Wittgenstein did notdevelop a typology of usage.To do so was not part of histask as a therapeuticphilosopher, it is part of thetask of philosophers of religionand others interested in probingthe integrity of

religious discourse. Tounderstand mantric utteranceone must explore theinterpretive conventions andthe circumstances taken forgranted among mantra users.

Wittgenstein and thePhilosophy of Religion

Sherry on Religious Language-Games

In Religion, Truth andLanguage-Games (1977),Patrick Sherry proposes amethod to facilitate the study ofdiscrete sorts of religiouslanguage. He calls for theexplication of the "logic" ofindividual religious conceptsand for the delineation of howthey refer to life and experience(1977, 189). According to hisaccount, the exegete of religiouslanguage faces three tasks.

These he labels, somewhateccentrically, locating, relating,and validating. 17

By the term locating, Sherrydesignates the identification ofthe smallest constituent sorts ofreligious utterance in terms ofthose circumstances that lendthem meaning. Locating isessentially sociological. Itmeans delimiting those"situations and facts" that areinvariably concomitant with

(the "necessary conditions" for)the occurrence of a particularform of religious utterance(1977, 84; cf. 50, 68). Locatingis preliminary. It prepares theground for further reflection bymaking the social ground of areligious language-game, itsirreduciable specificity, explicit.

By relating, Sherry meansdetermining the criticaldifferentiae between onelanguage-game and another,

while discriminating the formsof life with which they arenecessarily associated (cf. 1977,49, 56). Relating focuses on thelinguistic action involved in anutterance. Locating asks Whendoes one say something?Relating asks What does one doin saying it? Relating, forSherry, is transitional, aspecialized form of locating thatinvariably leads to the questionof validating. It is important

because it makes clear that indelimiting the social dimensionsof a religious language-gameone begins to uncover the sortof cognitive claims made,implicitly or explicitly, by thatmanner of speaking and thesort of evidence needed toverify or falsify these claims. Inother words, relating compelsone to face the fact thatcomplete and honestdescription of meaning, in and

of itself, raises the question oftruth.

Validating is Sherry's term forthe process of evaluating thetruth of religious assertions(1977, 49f.). One might wellquestion whether this can bepart of a Wittgensteinianprogram for the analysis oflanguage. Wittgenstein hadbeen concerned primarily todiscover how utterances makesense (Sherry 1977, 2f.). He

concluded that meaning isdependent upon function,"Only in the stream of thoughtand life do words havemeaning" (Z 173). As aconsequence "there are manykinds of so-called descriptiveor fact-stating language, andthese relate to the world indifferent ways" depending ontheir subject matter, their"methods of projection," andtheir "grammar" (17). To

Sherry, this conclusion is

easily misconstrued. He argues,persuasively, thatacknowledging the variety oflanguase-games underscoresrather than obviates the needfor ajudicating competingclaims. Since "areas ofdiscourse overlap, then itfollows that there must be someconnection between theircriteria of evidence, rationalityand truth" (Sherry 1977, 161).

Since language-games andforms of life depend upon"framework facts," themultiplicity of ways of speakingis not in itself evidence for amultiplicity of unrelatable sortsof truth. If the ontologicalimplications of differentlanguage-games conflict, then adecision is called for. One isnot compelled to speak incontradictions. Even "believers"cannot be wholly "oblivious of

the facts'' (Sherry 1977, 84).

Language-Games and ChristianFideism

Most Christian theologians whohave been attracted toWittgenstein employ histhought in order to emancipateChristian "truth" from thecriteria of scientific or seculartruth. They typically argue thatreligious language is"noncognitive," and they use

Wittgenstein's thought as a toolto deflect the positivist demandfor "verification." A religiousassertion, they tell us, is suigeneris; it need only "be itself"for it to be "in order." 18

Sherry rejects the attempt tofinesse the question ofvalidation and argues that theuse of Wittgensteinian thoughtto defend Christian fideismdistorts Wittgenstein.19 Hisposition may be clarified in

contrast to that of Winch(1976). Proceeding fromWittgenstein's observation thatmeaning varies according tousage, Winch argues thatdifferent "modes of social life"engender different sorts ofrationality.

Criteria of logic ... are not adirect gift of God, but arise outof, and are only intelligible inthe context of, ways of living ormodes of social life ... science

is one such mode and religionis another; and each has criteriaof intelligibility peculiar toitself. (p. 100)

Sherry, in contrast, emphasizesthe fact that all language-gamesand forms of life are responsesto an experienced world, theimplicit unity of whichunderlies and makes possiblethe diversity of human culture.Sherry thus avoids an ultimatebifurcation between scientific

and nonscientific language-games, just as he avoids thesolipsistic relativism of cultural"worlds" that a Winchianperspective would seem toimply.

From Sherry's point of view, inprinciple, there are ways ofresolving conflicts between thecognitive claims of varioussorts of human utterance (1977,39, 167). A particular religiouslanguage-game can claim a

particular kind of truth only if itrefers to a particular state ofaffairs (1977, 185). A particularclaim may be verified orrefuted because every language-game and every form of lifeactually speaks to some humanstate (172).

Mantrasastra * and HinduFideism

Sherry justly observes thatmany attempts to applyWittgensteinian thought toreligious issues have been"disappointing." Wittgenstein'sphilosophy, he notes, "hastended to be used in an attemptto provide over-simple,evasive, and question-begging

solutions to very fundamentalproblems" (1977, 193).Whittaker (1978, 193) hassimilarly observed that thefacile use of Wittgensteinianjargon, like the "facile readingof Wittgenstein as anunswerving" noncognitivist, isplayed out. The misuse ofWittgensteinian thought as anapology for Christian fideismmight seem irrelevant to a studyof an eleventh century Sanskrit

text. However, any number ofpeopleNeo-Hindu thinkers,devotees of one or another''new religious movement,"professional mysticstodayfacilely exempt the Hindutradition from the rigorousepistemological standards ofscientific, or even traditionalIndian, thought. In effect, theyare arguing for a Hindu fideism.The apparent inscrutability ofMantrasastra* would seem to

support such a position, but Ibelieve that it does not. Onepurpose of this essay is to showthat mantric utterance is acomplex and subtle manner ofspeaking that does not provideevidence for an unequivocallyfideistic reading of the Hindutradition. Hence, the utility ofSherry's formulation ofWittgensteinian philosophy ofreligion: It directs attention toan aspect of religious language

consideration of which is tooeasily evaded, the conformityof various religious claims tothe facts.

Limiting myself to the evidenceof the SSuV*, and thusessentially in mantras used in aredemptive context, in thisessay I propose (1) to attend tothe social context of mantricutterance, (s) to delineate whatdistinguishes it as a tool ofcognition, and (3) to attempt to

decipher the implicit claimsabout the universe that itmakes. There is a generalcorrelation between the twosucceeding sections of myexegesis and Sherry's threemoves. In the next section ofthis essay, I venture adelineation of the socialdimension of mantric utteranceaccording to the SSuV*. Thiscorresponds broadly tolocating. In the subsequent

section, I describe theepistemological dimension ofmantric utterance and assess itstheological implications. Indoing this, I attempt todetermine what cognitiveclaims are implicit in mantricspeech and to suggest how theymay be evaluated. Thisaccordingly corresponds toboth relating and validating.

Apologists for theism havedismissed mantras as magical;

enthusiasts for the mystical Easthave accepted them uncritically.In spite of their paradigmaticcharacter, few have attemptedto examine the theologicalclaims implicit in their usecarefully. The utility of myapproach will be corroboratedif it enables me so to describethe circumstances when certainpivotal Kasmiri* Saiva*mantras are uttered and thecharacter of their utterance so

that one will be promptedsubsequently to assess the truthof the claims about the cosmosthatin part metaphorically, inpart metaphysicallythey make.

The Social Dimension ofMantric Utterance

Orientation

In the Hindu tradition, to a fargreater extent than in mostother, ostensibly more self-conscious religious traditions,there is an explicit awarenessthat achieving religiousconsummation involves themastery of specifiable

techniques. 20 Ironically, thissituation obscures the fact thatthe mastery of specifiabletechniques itself presupposes aprior mastery of skills that resistspecification. The successfuluse of an "instrument" such asmantric utterance presupposesthat one has already acquiredthe proper attitudes, demeanor,and expectationsthat is, theproper frame of mindby havingbeen successfully socialized in

the society that recognizesmantric utterance as an"authorized" technique thatmakes possible one of the kindsof transcendence it is deemedacceptable to experience.

The confident, routine use ofmantras surely presupposes aspecific, identifiable set ofconvictions concerning thehuman condition, the idealsocial order, and the purpose ofexistence. Acceptance of these

convictions is the tacit groundwithout which Mantrasastra*would neither have beeninvented nor have remainedvital. Whatever reasons mightbe adduced to defend theseconvictions, their acceptance isnot itself discursive, it is social.As lived, they are part of theforms of life, "the formalconditions, the patterns in theweave of our lives" (Gier, 32),that give meaning to the

language-game of utteringmantras.

In this portion of my essay, Iattempt to delineate, on thebasis of Ksmaraja's* SSuV*,the social grounding of mantricutterance, what constitutes it asan intentional social act.Obviously, no such delineationcan be complete, for any socialact is embedded in a complexof customs and institutions (PI337); "what belongs to a

language-game is a wholeculture" (Lecture on Aesthetics,26).21 Self-evidently, thelanguage-game of utteringmantras is situated within asocial cosmos organizedaccording to the principles ofcaste hierarchy, culminating inand yet transcended byinstitutionalized renunciation(samnyasa*), which, as such,recognizes the authority of anelite of "perfect spiritual

masters" (gurus) and whichexperiences the cosmos as afabric interwoven of various"powers," as saktic*. These are,in general, the "situations andfacts" that are invariablyconcomitant with mantricutterance. They are thepreconditions that make itpossible and lend it meaning.Keeping this social cosmos inmind, one may discern the mostprominent formal

characteristics of the speech actof uttering mantras: (1) thatuttering a mantra is a thingdone, and hence, a learnedactivity; (2) that uttering amantra is both a context- and arule-dependent activity; (3) thatthe activity of uttering a mantramay be compared profitably toa move in a game.

I do not here attempt acomprehensive social scientificportrayal of Kasmiri* Saiva*

mantric utterance. I merelyattempt to demonstrate thatconceptualizing mantricutterance as a social activity isplausible. This

will, I trust, indicate possibledirections for future study; forexample, the examination of thesocial skills drawn upon inMantrasastra * from theperspective of developmentalpsychology or the sociology ofknowledge.

Mantric Utterance as Activity

Mantra as Cause and Effect

The discussion of moksa* inthe SSu* begins with Sentra1.5: "Bhairava is theefflorescence [of Siva*](Udyamo bhairavah.)" (18).22In his exposition of this sutra*,Ksemaraja* cites an Agamic*fragment which he attributes tothe Svacchanda Tantra (SvT):

[Only] the mantras of a manwho is united with the eternal,that is, one who has realizedthat he is Bhairava, are

successful, oh Goddess.23

The use of the verb pra-siddh,typical in such a context, isnoteworthy. It means "beefficacious," "work," "besuccessful," and logicallyimplies that mantras may beuttered unsuccessfully.24 Toborrow a term from J. L.Austin's discussion of speechacts, locutions such as thissuggest that the articulation of amantra may be "unhappy."25 If

one asks Under whatcircumstances do mantraswork? one is immediatelypresented with a dialecticalcontradiction. In spite of thefact that mantric utterance, atleast within the milieu of theSSuV*, is the premierinstrument for attaining the goalof the religious quest, it looksas if a mantra cannot besuccessfully brought into playuntil and unless one has already

attained the goal in question. (Itis as if one couldn't successfulydrop-kick a football in order tomake a conversion unless onehad already been awarded anextra point.) Ksemaraja*acknowledges this in theintroductory sentence of hiscommentary to SSu* 1.5:

Sutra* 1.5 points out themethod (upaya*) [for attaining]the pacification of that bondage[which has just been

discussed]; it is that reality[where one is already]reposing in the object to beattained (upeya).26

Numerous passagesand notonly in the literature drawnupon by thePratyabhijna*reinforce thisanomaly: Mantras work onlyfor those who would appear nolonger to need them.Commenting on SSu* 1.19Ksemaraja* cites another

Agamic* fragment:

Unless one has been reunited[with sakti*] one can neither beinitiated, attain perfections,[use] mantras, apply mantras,nor even [make use of] yogicattraction.27

Mantric utterance appears atonce as magical andmethodical: on the one hand, asa formulaic power that one maywield as a result of one's innerperfection; on the other hand,

as the cause of that innerperfection.

Which view is correct?Commenting on the passageattributed to the SvT citedearlier, Ksemaraja * observes,"the verb bhu* [to become, torealize] refers to that cognition(vimarsa*) which is theoverwhelming inner emergence[of Bhairava]."28 The use of thetechnical term vimarsa*(transcendental judgment, thecapacity of Siva*-who-is-

consciousness to make himselfthe object of the cognition"I")29 suggests howKsemaraja* understandsmantras: not fundamentally asmagic formulae that allow oneto impose one's inner will uponthe world but as tools forengendering (recognizing) acertain state of affairs. To putthis in our terms, forKsemaraja* a mantra works, isredemptive, when and only

when it engenders the proper*sort of "cosmic" consciousness;otherwise, it is empty. Forsomeone who doesn'tunderstand this, it appears to bemagical. For someone whodoes understand it, it appears tobe a comprehensive personalactivity, something one does.

For Ksemaraja*, a redemptivemantra must be understood as alinguistic act that, in and ofitself, effects a state of mindif

and only if it is properlyuttered. Preparing to utter amantra redemptively is neverpresumed to be easy; on thecontrary, for the novice, it is asupremely arduous socialachievement. Uttering it,however, turns out in the end tobe effortless. One achievesfreedom merely by saying oneis free. Ksemaraja's* use ofudyantrta* to echo the sutra's*udyama cannot be

unintentional. Both words,derived from the verb ud-yam,conceal a double meaning. Onthe one hand, they are technicalterms that refer directly to astate of yogic excitement, of"elevated" consciousness, aspiritual "high." At the sametime, they never wholly losetheir ordinary meaning of"effort." They remind theaspirant that freedom is won asa result of intense, heroic

exertion. Put in this context, wecan begin to apprehend theview implicit in Ksemaraja's*position: The utterance of amantra must be understood asan acta social actthat yet turnsout to be no action at all.Mantrasastra* must beunderstood in terms of thedialectic between upaya*(method) and anupaya*(methodless method), which isa leitmotif of the

pratyabhijna's* utilization ofthe Saivagamas* in general.

Mantra as Ritual

Even clearer evidence thatKsemaraja* implicitlyunderstands the utterance of amantra to be an activity isfound in his comment on SSu*2.2. The sutra* reads: "[In thecase of mantric utterance] aneffort is effective [in achievinga goal] (prayatnah*

sadhakah*)" (48). Ksemaraja*elaborates:

It is an unfeigned effortnamelythe effort that [already] hasbeen established in the firstchapter [of the SSu*] as beingthe desire to be merged(anusamdhitsa*) with a mantrawhose form has beenspecifiedwhich impartsidentification of the utterer ofthe mantra (mantrayitur) withthe god [i.e., the object] of themantra.30

The use of the denominativeagent noun Mantrayitr * (onewho mantras a mantra) suggeststhat Ksemaraja* understandsuttering a mantra as an integralpersonal action. But doesKsemaraja* really envision the"efforting," upon whichsuccessfully putting a mantrainto play depends, as an activityinvolving intense personalexertion? A passage attributed

to the Tantrasadbhava* (TSB)that Ksemaraja* rites suggestshe does:

Just as a hawk, hovering in thesky, notices his prey, my dear,And quickly, naturally, with alunge, plucks it to himself(akarsayet*)A master yogi, in this veryway, should send out(vikarsayet*) his mind to thefoundation point (bindu);Just as an arrow placed on abow flies [to its target] when it

has been carefully shot(yatnena atadya*)So, Goddess, the foundationpoint flies [to the yogi] bymeans of his enunciation(uccara*) [of the mantra].31

Ksemaraja* explains:

The master yogi, by means ofan unfeigned and naturalexertion should send out hismind to the foundation point; hewill then attain the supremeillumination (paraprakasa*);that is, by means of one's

enunciation [of a mantra],which is to say, by means ofunfeigned, overwhelmingelevation (akrtakodyantrta-*),the foundation point flies [toone], that is, it flows forth(prasarati).32

The dialectical tact of theselines and their interpretation isremarkable. The images of thehawk and its prey and of thearrow and its target are used toillumine the relationship

between the enunciator of amantra and that reality (herebindu equated withparaprakasa*) at which heaims, without suggesting eitherthat the utterer does nothing(like a hawk, he sends out hismind) or that his action issoterically self-sufficient (likethe arrow, the bindu flies tohim). On the contrary, thepassage suggests awareness thatsuccessful mantric utterance is

an activity demanding skill,dedication, and presence ofmind; an activity designed toelicit a response from a realitytoward which the action isdirected.

As such an action, mantricutterance, when usedredemptively, does not standalone. It is part of an involved"tantric" sadhana*. That"discipline," in turn, makes useof a sequence of ritual gestures

and presupposes the sometimestacit, but always vital support ofthe complex, fissiparous, highlysegmented hierarchical socialworld we call Hindu. Staalsurely is correct in situating theuse of mantras in the broadcontext of Indian ritual life.33Its place in the Hindu ritualcosmos merits reflection. AsDumont has observed, theHindu social order seems torequire institutionalized

renunciation (samnyasa*) forits "completion." The re-

nouncer completes the map ofHindu society and providestranscendental justification forit. Similarly, one might add,institutionalized renunciationseems to require the guru, themost successful of renouncersto complete and justifysamnyasa *. There issubstantial ritual continuitybetween the sadhana* of theguru and the "older" traditions

of yajna* and puja*. Indeed,the guru may be understood tomanifest the efficacy of ritual assuch, thus affirming thewholeness of the Hindu world.

The uttering of mantras maywell be the most characteristicHindu ritual gesture. Itaccompanies and supplementsvarious ritual acts at once inVedic, popular, and Tantricsettings. An analogy suggestsitself. Just as the guru

completes society by"transcending" it; so, too,mantric utterance may beunderstood to completeordinary language-games by"transcending" them. If this isso, far from being mysticalinstruments of individualisolation, mantras may helpdefine and facilitate theperformance of the publicrituals of puja* and yajna*.34Mantras are highly refined,

dialectically complexinstruments of personal innertransformation. For this veryreason, they are able to functionat the intersection of the"public" and "private" realms ofthe Hindu cosmos. Hence, apreliminary conclusion: As alearned action, mantricutterance depends upon andaffirms the order and values ofthe very society that it isdesigned to transcend.

Mantric Utterance as Rule-Dependent

There can be no doubt that, asan activity, successfully puttinga mantra into play is context-and rule-dependent; for themeaningfulness of anyutterance depends upon itsbeing uttered in an appropriatecontext and its conforming to aweb of partially explicit,partially tacit regulations. (Thisis the conclusion of both

speech-act analysis andWittgenstein's exploration' oflanguage-games.) The rule-conforming character ofmantric utterance is furtherevidence of its intrinsicallysocial nature: "One personalone cannot follow a rule" (PI199). Hence, if one grants thatmantric utterance is linguistic,then one will be compelled toconclude that even the loneadept uttering a monosyllabic

mantra repetitiously and insilence will be able to do soonly because, in fact, hepresupposes and conforms tothe norms of the linguisticcommunity of which he is amember.35

Can one understand the rules towhich mantric utterance issubject? To a certain extent, onecan easily, for they are public.The texts dealing withsadhana* include many

handbooks of Mantrasastra*that provide detailed"instructions" for usingmantras, often with bewilderingand minute specificity.36 Theimpression that these manualsgive is that little is left tochance. The deity himself hasrevealed everything that hisdevotees have to know to usehis mantras. All that theMantravadin* has to do is carryout directions properly;

individual imagination or tastecould hardly be relevant.

In spite of their prolixity andabundance, the apodicticregulations

governing mantric utterance aredeceiving. To a great extent theuse of mantras is optionalrather than mandatory, and allthe more so in a redemptivecontext. Hence, the majority ofmantric utterances invariablypresuppose at least a certainnumber of individualjudgments. Applying a rule,moreover, is never mechanical;application is interpretation.

Even more significantly, in aTantric setting, use of a mantrais almost never "free lance"; itdepends upon accepting theguidance of one's spiritualmaster.

On this dependence upon theguru, SSu * 2.6, withKsemaraja's* introductoryphrase, could not be clearer: "inthe matter of getting mantras towork (manrtraviryasadane*) 'itis the guru who is the path'

(gurur vpayah*)" (59).Ksemaraja's* commentary onthis sutra* emphasizes at oncethe indispensability of the guruin using mantras successfullyand that it is the guru's mantricutterance that accounts for hispower:

The guru is he who proclaims(grnati*) ... the truly real(tattvikam* artham); he is thepath in that he is the one whoindicates how mantras work.37

In his interpretation,Ksemaraja* draws upon thewidespread Hindu convictionthat the guru is the suprememediator between the ordinaryand the real and that, as such,his words count intrinsically asmantra. This consensusif it isthatis artfully expressed in theGuru Gita*, a Puranic* textpopular today among thefollowers of Siddha Yoga, anew religious movement

inspired in part by the traditionsof Kasmiri* Saivism*. Verse174 of this text aptlycharacterizes the guru's role aspsychopomp:

It is the guru who is thesupreme passageway (tirtha*),[in comparison to him] anyother passageway is of no use;And it is the big toe of [theguru's] foot, Goddess, uponwhich all [lesser] passagewaysdepend.38

Verse 76 of this same textelaborates the guru'sparadigmatic role:

The guru's form (murti*) is thesource of trance (dhyana*), theguru's foot is the source ofritual action (puja*);The guru's utterance (vakya*)is the source of mantra, theguru's compassion (krpa*) isthe source of freedom(moksa*).39

Thus, it is not surprising that

Ksemaraja* cites passages fromseveral authoritative texts toreinforce the point that the guruholds the key to the efficacy ofmantras because of the uniquequality of his speech. He quotesSiva* himself as saying in theMalintvijaya* Tantra (MVT):"He who illumines [i.e.,manifests (prakasaka*)] theefficacy of mantras is said to bea guru equal to me(matsamah*)."40 So, too, he

cites the SpK, where one is toldto do obeisance to the"eloquence of the guru"(gurubharati*), which is avehicle equipped to carry oneacross the bottomless ocean of

doubt. 41 Finally, he cites twopassages, one attributed to theMVT, the other to theMantrisirobhairava*, thatassess a guru's utterance(guruvaktra). The guru'sutterance, we are told, is the"wheel of power"(sakticakra*); the guru beingthe divine power that grantsrelease.42 Accordingly,Ksemaraja* is able to

conclude: "'The power [of theguru] which proceeds from hisutterance is greater than theguru himself,' that power,which provides a favorableopportunity [to attain freedom]is the path."43

These quotations suffice toillustrate the social role of thespiritual master inMantrasastra*, as understood inthe SSuVim*. The guru, likethe mantra itself, is liminal.

Both stand on the thresholdbetween the public and theprivate, the threshold between"inner" and "outer" experience.As such, the guru and hisintrisically mantric discourse,by his very existence in theHindu social world, helps makebelief in the complex efficacyof mantras plausible for amyriad of individuals whohave, as a practical matter, littlehope of using mantras

successfully themselves, at leastin a redemptive context.

Mantric Utterance as a Movein a Game

Further insight into the socialcharacter of mantric utterance,as Ksemaraja* implicitlyunderstands it, may be found inhis commentaries on Sutras*1.22 and 2.3, where both theefficacy of mantras(mantravirya*) and their

"selection" (mantroddhara*)are discussed. SSu* 2.3 says:"The secret of mantra is thebody of wisdom(vidyasartrasatta*mantrarahasyam)" (50). Inexplicating this sutra*,Ksemaraja* quotes a long,complex, important passagefrom the TSB (cf. Goudriaan &Gupta 1981, 39; Padoux 1963,112ff.). The secret ("rahasyam"is glossed "upanisad*") of

mantras is unfolded,Ksemaraja* tells us, in the TSB:

All mantras consist ofTranscendental Phonemes(varnas*) and [thus], my dear,they are really sakti*Sakti*, however, should beknown as the Mother [of thecosmos] (Matrka*) and sheshould be known as reallySiva*.44

Continuing, the passage, ineffect, explains why mantric

utterance seems so obscure incomparison with otherlanguage-games:

[Those who have] abandonedaction [in conformity withdharma], who have [only]mundane goals [and values],who are satisfied with deceitand fraudDon't even know that the guruis god and that this is inagreement with the scriptures(sastra*)For just this reason, goddess, I

have concealed (pragopitam)the efficacy [of mantras]Because of this concealment(guptena) they are hidden(gupta);

only the TranscendentalPhonemes [which theuninitiated do not know how touse] remain 45

These lines, the beginning of adetailed, exceedingly beautifulTantric cosmology, attempt toexplain the dialectical duality ofmantric utterance: Mantras areat once "open" and "closed,"dear and obscure; speakingsocially, they are both public

and private. In the preface tothis passage, Ksemaraja* homesin on this duality as the due tounderstanding the efficacy thatalone allows mantras to be usedsuccessfully: "In this passagefrom the TSB, the efficacy ofmantras [ayam artham =mantraviryam*], having been[appropriately] ordered(vitatya), has been clarified(sphutikrtah*) in spite of thefact that it is exceedingly secret

(atirahasyo 'pi)."46

These linesindeed, these twosections of the SSuV* as awholemake it dear that, on theone hand, mantras are simplysomething there, something"given"; after all, they areSiva*-who-becomes-the-cosmos. On the other hand, it isequally plain, they aresomething one must go out and"get." They need to be theobject of a special intuition

(anubhava, 1.22 [44]), theobject of a ritual of "extraction"(mantroddhara*, 1.22 [45]);they have to be "entered into"(anu-pra-vis-*, 1.22 [45]) or"accomplished'' (sadh-*, 2.3[50]). Without doubt, theSSuV* portrays mantricutterance as both accessible andinaccessible, both simple to useand tricky to use. This suggeststhe utility of understandingmantric utterance as a species

of ritual play: Uttering a mantrais making a particular move in aparticular game. Like many ofthe moves in a game, it requirespeculiar expertise. Yet, it isexceedingly simple once onehas learned how to do it.

In proposing this, I draw uponthe work of a number ofhistorians and social scientistswho, following JohanHuizinga's Homo Ludens(1955), have explored the role

of play in human culture. Myclassification of mantricutterance as "ludic" is not meantto be disparaging. On thecontrary, with Huizinga (1955,6), I assess play as potentially adeadly serious business, a formof expression so serious that itoften "wholly [runs] away withthe players" (1955, 8). Ritualplay is often of this sort. AsHuizinga had the wit torecognize, every ritual system

presupposes a metaphor, moreexactly a set of metaphors:

Behind every abstractexpression there [lies] theboldest of metaphors, andevery metaphor is a play onwords. Thus in givingexpression to life man creates asecond, poetic world alongsidethe world of nature. (1955, 4)

This means, Huzinga goes on,that ritual play,

creates order, is order. Into an

imperfect world and into theconfusion of life it brings atemporary, a limited perfection.(1955, 10)

From this perspective, mantricutterance would surely have tobe characterized as "makebelieve." Can one, in that case,still take seriously its claim tobe a method for attaining a realreligious transformation, afundamental reorientation ofone's way of being in theworld? I believe onecanprovided one takes care toexegete its playful character.

Understanding mantricutterance as a move in a gamehelps one understand itscharacter as a particular sort ofsocial action. It is a manner ofspeaking indirectly that isdependent upon a precise set ofmetaphors. At the same time, itintends to be referential. Thisdescription of mantric utteranceas a move in a game preparesthe ground for assessing thetruth of a mantra's referential

claim precisely because itallows one to decipher thepoetic vision in whose terms amantra's reference is cast.

Ksemaraja's * comments onSSu* 1.22 may be understoodin this light. The sutra* reads: "[Only] through immersion(anusamdhana*) in the greatlake (mahahrada*) [which issakti*] may one directly intuit(anubhava) the efficacy ofmantras."47 Ksemaraja*

elaborates:

Mantric efficacy ... is thejudgment (vimarsa*) of thetranscendental "I"(parahanta*) who expandsinto the [transcendental]verbal-mass(sabdarasispharatmaka-*)[from which the ordinaryverbal world evolves];

Its direct intuition (anubhava)is due to immersion in the greatlake, which is to say, it is dueto the internal, uninterrupted

judgment of being united with it(antarmukhtaya* anaratam*tattadatmyavimarsana*);

This direct intuition explodes[into view] as oneself(svatmarupataya*sphuranam* bhavati);

[This is explained] in the MVTin the passage which begins"The sakti* of the creator of thecosmos (jagaddhatr*) ..."

[Since it has been] shown [inthat passage] that sakti*

consists of the entire worldwhich is formed from themother [of the cosmos](matrka*) and the sequence [oftranscendental phonemes](malini*) which [in turn] takeform as the fifty different ...powers beginning withvolition, the extraction ofmantras has been made clear;

Supreme sakti* alone is thegreat lake, for this reason it hasbeen correctly said that thedirect intuition of the efficacy

of mantras which is really theefficacy of matrka* andmalini* is due to immersion inher.48

In this passage the "extraction"of mantrasa particular,specifiable social actiscorrelated, first, with anepistemological event, aspecific cognition (virnarsa*)of the Mantravadin*. It iscorrelated, second, with anontological fact, that the world

is nothing but the fabric ofsaktic* sounds and vibrationsthat in the end, are the body ofSiva*. Hence, for a mantricutterance to be successful one(and one's guru) must knowboth the

rules (a social reality) and thatto which a mantra refers (itsontological referent). Ksemaraja* summarizes:

It has been shown that the secretof mantras, which are theembodied amalgam oftranscendental phonemes(varnasamghattanasariranam*),is, as has already beenexplained, none other thanBhagavati* [i. e., Sakti*], whose

being is the 'body of wisdom.'This is why (ayam eva asayah*)the discussion of the "extraction"of mantras is preceded, in everyscripture (pratyagama*), by the"deploying" (prastara*)49 of theMother [of the cosmos](matrka*) or the[transcendental] sequence ofphonemes (malini*).50

Mantrasastra* can beunderstood to make sense if itis understood as a ritual gesturepredicated on the assumption

that the Hindu may experience asaktic* universe. Padouxsummarizes this presuppositionclearly:

Two powers are associated withevery Mantra: one power(vacakasakti*),which"expresses" or "signifies", is theMantra itself. [The other](vacyasakti*), which is "to beexpressed" or ''signified," is thedevata* [the god or "object" ofthe mantra]. Here as elsewherethe second aspect follows from

the first, for it is the Word whichis primal, the fecundator whoprecedes her object. (1963, 298)

It follows, too, that the rightmantra used in the proper wayby the qualified person isbelieved to be a key thatunlocks the saktic* structure ofthe cosmos. Under those, andonly under those, sociallydetermined circumstances, itbecomes a "signifier" that leadsthe one who wields it to that

which it "signifies." So it is thatmantric utterance at oncedesignates that for which oneought to strive and asserts thatone may attain it in the very actof designation. As a key movein the very complex game of"being Hindu," it has the effectof socially fabricating the realityto which it claims to refer. It isaccepted as a form of speakingthat effects one of thoseultimate transformations that

Hindu society optimallydemands, because it isunderstood to lead one "back"to the very roots of ordinarydiscourse. Just as the practiceof playing chess turns a pieceof wood into a chessman, thepractice of a Tantric disciplinein a cosmos believed to besaktic* turns the syllables of amantra into a subtle, linguistictool for apprehending that thecosmos is nothing but Siva's*

game-encompassing language-game.51

The Epistemological Dimensionof Mantric Utterance and ItsTheological Implications

Orientation

In order to appraise not onlythe social ground of mantricutterance but its intended andactual social function as well,one must assess its

epistemological character.Mantric utterance, being areligious language-game,functions as a theodicy,providing reassurance that "it'san OK world." 52 Whatdifferentiates mantric utterancefrom other Indian religiouslanguage-games is the precisemanner in which it providesthis reassurance: It is taken tobe a tool of cognition that,

under the right circumstances,leads the person who utters it tocognize the world in such a waythat he "realizes" that the world"really is all right."

That mantric utterance, asdescribed by the SSuV*, ismore an intellectual than amagical way of speaking is notsurprising. As early as theUpanisads*, there has been aHindu religious elite whoconceptualized "bondage" and

"freedom" in fundamentallyepistemological terms. Fromtheir point of view, everydaylife (vyavahara*) wasunderstood to exhibit a doublenature. It inhibitedapprehension of the deepstructure of the cosmos, but bythis very obscuration, itprovided the means that made itpossible for religious virtuosi toperform certain axiomaticallyperceptive acts of cognition that

were tantamount to knowingreality as such.

Keeping this historical contextin mind, one may understandmantric utterance as a"mechanism" for thinking acertain privileged class ofthoughts. From Ksemaraja's*viewpoint, reaching the rightconclusions about Siva*-who-becomes-the-world is thatwhich "saves." Such saving actsof cognition cannot be

appropriated cheaply. (Sayingthem without meaning themdoesn't count!) One cannot getthe point without playing thegame; one can only get thepoint if one plays the gamepropery.

Both the real and the traditionaletymology of the word mantrafocuses attention on itsintellectual nature. According tothe former, a mantra is aninstrument (-tra) of reflection

(man-); according to the latter amantra is a thought (manana)that saves (tra-*). In bothcases, allusion is made to theextraordinary intellectualobjectivity attributed tomantras. They appear as"machines" in the "tool-box" ofthe Tantric adept, machineswhose raison d'ätre is to serveas the means for attaining thecognition that can be reclaimedonly because, ultimately, it has

never been lost. In this context,the chief epistemologicalcharacteristics of mantricutterance may be discerned: (1)mantras are tools of cognition;(2) mantras are elements in asystem of discourse thatdepends upon certain rootmetaphors; (3) mantricutterance is experienced asdisclosive.

In a redemptive context,mantric utterance does not

appear to be either empty orineffable. It has a "message:" Itis understood to be a cognitiveinstrument that providesultimate consolation because, inits very articulation, it dispelsthe cognitive darkness ofnescience.

Mantric Utterance as a Tool ofCognition

Ksemaraja* clarifies hisepistemological understanding

of mantric utterance in SSuV*2.1. The sutra* says: "A mantrais [an act of] consciousness(cittam mantrah*)" (47).Ksemaraja* takes this to be anexplication of the fundamentalcharacter of mantric utterance(mantrasvarupa*). His in-

terpretation emphasizes that theutterance of a redemptive mantra isa specific act of cognition:

"citta" is [that act of consciousness]by which ultimate reality (param *tattvam) is cognized (cetyate), thatis to say, [that act of consciousnessby which] one becomes aware(vimrsyate*) [of it]; it is that [self]-awareness (samvedana*) which isformed by the realization(vimarsa*) of [mantras] such as the

Pranava* and Prasada* which arereally the flowering of the fullness[of Siva*-who-becomes-the-cosmos] (purnasphuratta-*).It is solely that act of consciousnesswhich is mantrically cognized insecret (tad eva mantryate guptam);by this [mantric cognition] that actof consciousness is judged(vimrsyate*) to take form as god(paramesvara*) who is internallynon-dual; this is the "derivation" [ofthe word] Mantra.

In other words, mantra is explainedas having the character of that

cognition (manana) which is theprimal vibration [in the cosmos]and [thus] as having the character ofrescuing one from [trana*]that ispacifying [prasamana*]samsara*which is [the realm] of dualities.53

Any doubt that Ksemaraja* takesthe episternic character of mantricutterance seriously ought bedispelled by the summation of hiscommentary on this sutra*.Ksemaraja* understands a mantra,in the proper sense of the term, to

be a tool of redemptive thought.This, he contrasts withununderstood "mantras," whichmay be caricatured as uselessstrings of nonesense syllables:A mantra is not merely an amalgam

of different syllables; it is [incontrast] precisely the act ofconsciousness of a patient devotee(aradhakacittam*) who, because[his very utterance of the mantra] isa cognition of that to which themantra refers(mantradevatavimarsaparatvena*attains fusion with that reality.54

The citations with whichKsemaraja* concludes this sectionof his commentary reinforce hisassertion that mantric utterance isgrounded in and hence able to leadone back to Siva*-who-is-consciousness. One quotation isattributed to the Srikanthisamhita*:

So long as the person uttering amantra (mantri*) is separate fromthe mantra itself, [his utterance] willnever be successful (siddhyati);

This whole cosmos (idam sarvam)is founded on consciousness(jnanamula*), unless that were thecase [the uttering of a mantra] couldnever succeed (siddhyati).55

A second is attributed to theSarvajnanottara* [Tantra]:

Mantras which are merelyenunciated [verbally] areknown not really to be mantras;the haughty devas * andgandharvas* have beendeluded (mohita*) by theerroneous conclusion(mithyajnana*) [that anununderstood mantra counts asa mantra].56

One may easily imagine anobjection to the interpretation

of mantras as epistemologicalinstruments. Mantras, a scepticmight argue, are tools ofmeditation (or of ritual) that, farfrom being intellectual, areexpressly designed to extirpatediscursive, objective cognitionand to evade its consequences.This objection carriesconsiderable weight, yet there isa rejoinder. The centraltradition of the Pratyabhijna*,as befits a theological response

to Tantric sadhana*, shares thewidespread Indian convictionthat the root problem in humanexistence is ignorance,"miscognition." The antidote tothis erroneous judgment isknowledge, as would have tobe the case. The antidote doesnot demand an absence ofcognition, it calls for correctcognition. Mantric utterance canbe consistent with thisconviction only if it is

understood as the "mother" ofcorrect cognition. This makespractical sense, too. The adeptdoes not disappear in trance.Realization does not mean thedissolution of the thinkingmind. If they really areredemptive, mantras have to betaken just as they are taken, astools that lead the adept to acomprehensive, but ultimatelydiscursive, vision of a coherentsaktic* world, a world

ultimately to be experienced asitself mantric, as Siva's* playfulverbal self-expression.

Mantric Utterance asMetaphoric

Root Metaphors of Mantra

Among the passages cited in theVimarsina's* discussion ofSutra* 2.1 is a verse attributedto the TSB. It places oneimmediately within the systemof metaphorical discourse that

Ksemaraja's* Mantrasastra*presupposes:

It is imperishable (avyaya*)sakti* which is recollected tobe that which animates mantras(mantranam* jivabhuta*);save for her, goddess, theywould be fruitless like autumnclouds [from which no rainsfall].57

Here, as often, the word sakti*has a double sense. On the onehand, it refers directly to one or

more deities who may beidentified by name andobjectified in ritual ormeditation. On the other hand,it refers indirectly to one ormore "capacities," of which thegoddess or goddesses inquestion are in some sense"personifications." The phrase"mantranam* jivabhuta*"(literally, that which is the lifeof mantras) refers to thatwithout which mantras would

be "dead"; that is, would notwork. To describe thisanimating factor as sakti* is todraw upon a set of symbolicconventions that provide avocabulary in whose terms theMantravadin* may account for,and affirm the ultimate valueof, a particular experi-

ence of the world. As employedin accordance with the oralinstruction of one's preceptorand as exegeted theologically inthe SSuV *, mantras assumemeaning solely as elementswithin this mythic system ofdiscourse.

That mantric utterancepresupposes a set of metaphoricconceits does not mean that it is

poetic, in the ordinary sense ofthe word. A metaphor is a tropeor figure of speech; that is, anepistemological tool designed todescribe and assess the humansituation indirectly. Mythicdiscourse is, in turn, a body ofreligious narratives that makeuse of a particular set ofmetaphors. As a narrativeelaboration of metaphor,mythic discourse assembles acomplex of indirect comments

concerning especially salientaspects, or the totality, of theexperienced world.

Mantric utterance as "somethingdone" is grounded in the Hindusocial world. So, too, as a toolof cognition, it takes forgranted certain Tantric variantsof Savite* myth andcosmology. Historically, neitherSaivite* spiritual discipline norSaivite* thought has ever beenwholly divorced from the

mythic discourse of Saivism*.By teaching it how to view theworld, the mythic traditionunconsciously shaped thereligious expectations of the"community" of Saivas*. It,thus, set the stage on whichdiscipline was followed andtheological explanationsdebated.58

Given the widespreadassumption of the Hindureligious elite that nescience is

the root cause of humansuffering, it makes sense thatthe Tantric version of Saivite*myth focuses in large measureon exposing both the limits andthe potential of humancognition. Therefore, one mustdecipher the system of mythicdiscourse that the SSuV*assumes and the root metaphorsupon which that mythicdiscourse is built before onewill be able to understand its

epistemological portrayal ofmantric utterance. One can"translate" a mantra (that is,explicate its meaning in direct,nonmetaphorical language)only if one sees the point of themetaphors it takes for granted.Only to the extent one hasproposed a plausiblenonmetaphoric translation canone assess the truth of theexistential assertions implicit ina mantra.59

By and large, the SSuV* offersa nonmantric exposition ofmantric utterance; its expositionis not nonmythic, however. Itsmythic discourse is built on aroot metaphor that is at onceorganic and personalistic: Theuniverse in which and in whomhuman beings live isunderstood to be Siva*, whotransforms himself into thecosmos. As the cosmos, he isunderstood to be a constant,

complex interaction ofpotencies, of personalizedforces, of saktis*. Twoespecially significant secondarymetaphors are drawn upon tofill out this essentially animisticvision. First, Siva* isunderstood as "sprouting,"unfolding, exploding; as thatprimal pulsation (spanda, etc.)that becomes the living-moving(cal-ana) world. The othersecondary metaphor brought

into play is verbal: Siva* is theWord.

In terms of these entirelyplausible metaphors, the humanworld is pictured and, one mayassume, experienced at once asa world in con-

stant process and as an organicunity, a coherent set ofcomplementary tendencies.Under the spell of the metaphorof "World as Word" both theorganic unity and the diversityof the world are understood asthe articulation, the expression(vacya *), of Siva*-who-is-Transcendental-Speech(paravac*) (cf. Padoux 1963,141ff.). In his capacity to speak

transcendentally Siva* is theone who articulates, expresses(vacaka*), the world. AsKsemaraja* innocentlyassumes, in a world soconstituted, it is natural to takemantras as peculiarly apt toolsfor "tricking" the utterer into aunique and uniquely valuablesort of cognition. Mantricutterance gets singled out as theone form of discourse thatenables a human being to assert

(to re-cognize) his freedomwithin the cosmic process. Toput this metaphorically, itallows the adept so to identifyhimself with Siva*, who is atonce Transcendental Speechand its mundane expression,that he, too, places himselfverbally at once at the centerand at the peripheries of thecosmic process. He, thereby,identifies wholly with the God-who-becomes-the-world, who

both is and isn't limited by hislimitation.

Myths of Mantra

The fundamentally mythiccontext of Ksemaraja's*understanding of mantrasreveals itself most dramaticallyin his comments concerningSSu* 1.4, 2.3, 2.7, and 3.19. Ineach of these sections,Ksemaraja* draws upon thewell-developed Saivagamic*

myth of Matrka*, the cosmicmother of miscognition. Thebasic cosmology is laid out inSSuV* 1.4. In 2.3 and 3.19,Ksemaraja* supplements hisaccount by citing twocosmogonies. The first, aportion of which was quotedearlier, is from the TSB. Thesecond is from theMalinivijaya* Tantra (MVT).In his comment on 2.7,Ksemaraja* draws upon a

version of the myth of Matrka*,which he attributes to theParatrisika* (PT), a textfragment largely devoted to themytheme of "God as the Wordthat becomes the World."60

The use of the mythic discourseof the Saivagamas* to make afundamentally epistemologicalpoint is well illustrated bySSuV* 1.4., where Ksemaraja*weaves together metaphoricaland literal statements. The

sutra* reads "Matrka* is thefoundation of cognition(jnanadhisthanam* matrka*)"(16). The reader already knowsfrom Sutra* 1.2 that limited"cognition" (jnana*)in contrastto "consciousness"(caitanya)may be equated withthe root problem in humanexistence, "bondage'' (bandha).Ksemaraja's* introductorysentence, using vocabularyintroduced in the previous

sutras*, thus indicates that thesutra* identifies the cause ofbondage: "The fourth sutra*answers the question:

'[How] is the threefold"blemish" (mala), that is,"cognition which ismiscognition"(ajnanatmakajnana*), theyonivarga, and thekalasarira*, bondage?',"61

Ksemaraja* begins his answerin a straightforward manner:

The threefold blemish [whichplagues human existence] issaid to be essentially thediversity of cognitions(vividham jnanarupam *).This amounts to pure andimpure [karmic] impressions(vasana*, the extension ofdifferentiated objects of thought(bhinnavedyapratha*), and thefeeling of incompleteness(apurman* manyata*) [i.e.,finitude].62

After this perfectly directepistemic reading of the humancondition, Ksemaraja* picks upthe sutra's* mythical referenceto Matrka*:

The uncognized mother(ajnata* mata*), of this[threefold blemish] is Matrka*,[the "matrix"] who begets theworld (visvajanani*) andwhose form [is the verbalcosmos extending] from "a" to"ksa*'' [the first and last lettersof the Sanskrit alphabet].63

This mythic statement isinterpreted as attributing humanimperfection to the fact that weare linguistic animals. Itsexplication, once again, is directand literal:

[She is the matrix] who imparts(adadhana*) forms such assorrow, astonishment, joy, andpassion to cognitions thatinvolve the appearance ofvarious limited (samkucita*)objects of cognition. [These

cognitions] amount to thejudgment (paramarsa*) thatthere has been an appearance,[i. e., that something is thecase], irrespective of whether[that appearance] is"predicative" or not(avikalpakasavikalpaka).[Examples of such judgmentsare] "I am a performer of theagnistoma* sacrifice," "I amskinny" or "I am fat," [and] "Iam finite." [She, thus,transforms cognitions] byinfusing them with various

expressive words (vacakasab-danuvedhadvarena*).64

Any suspicion that Ksemaraja*takes his direct, epistemicstatements seriously and hismythic ones lightly is dispelledby the remainder of thecommentary, beginning with averse attributed to theTimirodghata*:

The Mahaghoras* are thedeities of the pithas*;They wield (?) the noose of

Brahman,They abide in the Karandhra-consciousness;They delude (mohayanti)[people] again and again.65

Stimulated by this verse andseemingly undeterred, as thoseof a different psychictemperment would be, by herportrayal here as the mother ofthat which is most banefulabout the human world,Ksemaraja* offers what is in

effect a brief prose paean toMatrka*:

She shimmers with thatsequence of saktis* beginningwith Brahmi* who are the innercontrollers (adhisthatr*) of[the constituent elements of thecosmos] such as the vargas andthe kalas*. She incites theassembling of

the sequence of letters which iswell known from the Sarvavira* and other agamas*. She isgraced (-cumbita*) with thecircle of powers (sakticakra*)whose names are Amba*,Jyestha*, Raudri*, and Vama*.She is Sakti the innercontroller.66

From this Saivagamic*perspective, the entire cosmosmay be experienced through

ritual and in meditation exactlyas it is envisionedmetaphorically, as animated bycircles upon circles ofgoddesses. Seen in this lightKsemaraja's* theory ofnescience reads like ademonology. No matter that, inthe final analysis, the saktic*world is sublated in that singlecomplex cognition who isSiva*. In the meantime, sakti*,in her countless guises, is

Ksemaraja's* real object ofreligious fascination. Hisutilization of this mythicmaterial is astute: He neitherloses himself in the metaphoricforest of the Saivagamas* norrepudiates it. Like hispredecessors in thePratyabhijna* tradition, hewirtes to provide a direct,public, philosophicallyresponsible articulation of whatwe can today recognize as an

essentially mythic view of theuniverse. Hence, he canconclude his commentary ofSutra* 1.4 with a directepistemological assertionsupplemented by twoquotations from the SpK thatallow him to return to a mythicvocabulary:

Because [Matrka*] alone is thefoundation of [ordinarycognition] (tad = jnana*) andbecause, as a consequence,

[ordinary cognitions] in no wayattend to [their own] innernonduality (antara'bhedanusamdhivandhyatvat*),ordinary cognitions are alwaysexternally oriented, not even fora moment do they attain repose(alabdhavisrantini*).67

It seems as if Ksemaraja* takesas his point of departure thefact that "matrka*" refers atonce to a mythic "figure," themother of the constellation ofpotencies (saktis*) that are

understood to be the hiddencontrollers of the cosmos, andto the linguisticality of theexperienced cosmos as such.He, thus, makes the simpleepistemological point thathuman existence is bondagebecause it is linguistic. Theverses he cites from the SpKmake the point metaphorically:

The individual self (sa), his[intrinsic] grandeur having beenstolen by activity (kala*),

having become the plaything(bhogyatam*) of the array ofpowers (saktivarga*) that arisefrom the [transcendental]verbal-mass (sabdarasi*) isknown as a bound (pasuh*)[creature]. Save for the infusionof [cognitions] by words(sabdanuvedhena* ... vina*)ideas (pratyaya) could notarise; for this reason [i.e.,because ideas do arise, weknow that] the saktis* areconstantly alert (utthita) toobscure the true nature of the

individual self.68Space precludes a detailedexegesis of any other passagesthat might exhibit the mythicalsubstratum of Ksemaraja's*theology of mantras. I

trust, however, that a sufficientnumber of passages have beencited to convey the flavor ofKsemaraja's * utilization ofSaivagamic* myth. I trust, too,that the main point isestablished: Ksemaraja*accepted mantric utterance as aprivileged, specialized linguisticinstrument that could be used toattain ultimate freedom. He waspersuaded that mantras were

effective because he wasconvinced that their veryutterance, in the propercircumstances, was aredemptive cognition.Ksemaraja* may be understoodas having an essentially mythicworldview. The system ofmythic discourse he took forgranted taught him that eachhuman being is fundamentallydeluded because he is alinguistic creature. It is

reasonable to assume that thismythic viewpoint predisposedKsemaraja* to understandmantric utterance as the oneform of speaking that allowed ahuman being to overcome theevils of linguisticality, becausein its very utterance, it disclosedthe roots of language itself. Itremains to explore how heunderstood this disclosivepower.

Mantra as Diclosive Utterance

Duality

Our exploration of theepistemological dimension ofmantric utterance as understoodin the SSuV* began with theexegesis of Ksemaraja's*commentary on Sutra* 2.1("cittam* mantrah*"). At theend of that commentary,Ksemaraja* cites a number ofauthoritative verses tosubstantiate his thesis that a

mantra is something more thanan inert conjunction of sounds.His final citation is SpK 2.2.Now that the mythic, and thusmetaphoric, element inKsemaraja's* understanding ofmantra has been indicated, weare able to return to the citiationin which it is taken for grantedthat mantras, on the appropriatelevel of reality, are animatebeings.

It is necessary to read SpK 2.1

and 2 together, as Ksemaraja*does in the Spand Nirnaya*[SpN]:

Mantras, possessing the powerof omniscience, resorting to thepower [of the primal vibration,spanda], exercise authority justas the senses do for embodiedselves; untainted and at peace,they, along with theconsciousness of their patientutterers, melt into that very[reality]; [as such] they possessthe characteristic of being

Siva* (sivadharmin*).69

In his commentary on SSu*2.1, Ksemaraja* expresses hisconviction that when a personutters a mantra properly, heattains fusion (samarasya*)with the object of that mantra(the Mantradevata*). He citesSpK. 2.2 in order to make thepoint that, from an ultimateperspective, a mantra and itsutterer "become" Siva* abecause they already "are"

Siva*. This is the apparentforce of the karika's* "have thecharacteristic of being Siva*.''

What can this mean? Thekarika* suggests that "beingSiva*" involves an intrinsicdoubling of role: On the onehand, there is the "exercising of

appropriate authority"(pravartante 'adhikara *); onthe other hand, there is "beingat peace" (santarupa*). This isan antithesis but, probably, notan alternative: Ultimately thePratyabhijna* authors agreethat any being is able to act"externally," that is, to exercisethe authority appropriate to hisplace on a particular level ofcosmic "evolution," solely

because, in some ultimatesense, he remains "internally'' atpeace. This intimation that"being Siva*" involves twocomplementary sorts or modesof existing is confirmed bySSuV* 3.15, where Ksemaraja*discusses the character of theadept who has achievedperfection.

SSu* 3.12-14 speaks of anadept who, by means of acertain sort of yoga, has

attained (siddh-) a realization ofhis own intrinsic "self-dependence"(svatantrabhava*). Sutra* 15implicitly addresses thequestion, "How should such aperfected one behave?"

Such a yogi should certainlynot be indifferent (udasina*).On the contrary;"He [should] attend to the'seed' (bijavadhanam*)" (15).The "seed" is supreme sakti*,

the primal pulsation, the causeof the world, as is said in thereknowned Mrtyujit* [Tantra],"She is the womb of all thegods and of their countless(anekadha*) powers tooShe is the [union] of Agni andSoma, therefore the entirecosmos comes forth [from her].Continuously [the yogi] shouldbe attentive to, which is to say,direct his mind into, the "seed"that is supreme sakti*.70

The contrast between udasina*

(indifference, sitting on theside) and avadhana* (attention,placing oneself within) isinstructive. One suggestspassivity, the other, attention,which at least leaves open thepossibility of activeinvolvement. I think, it ischaracteristic of the centralsoteriological tradition of thePratyabhijna* that ultimaterealization is not portrayedmerely as an absolute

abstraction from the chaos ofthe world but as absoluteattention to that chaos.Realization amounts tomeditative attention to thatchaos that is the world as itproceeds from and is sakti*(this is the double entendre ofpra-vrt-*).

SSu* 3.15 directs theaccomplished yogi to beattentive to the bija*,71presumably to the Mrtyujit or

Netra mantra OM* JUM*SAH*. In other words, one is todirect attention to the"alphabetic" form of sakti*, hermantric form conceived of asthe womb of cosmicmultiplicity. Mantra is a path ofreturn through the maze of thesaktic* world. Ksemaraja* andthe tradition he follows takemantric utterance asfundamentally transformative,creating a special way of being

in the world. When used well, aredemptive mantra is acceptedby this tradition as disclosing a"new" reality, one to which theutterer of the mantra waspreviously unable to direct hisattention.

What does such a mantricutterance disclose? In SSu*3.15, the bija* is

portrayed as the womb of themultiplicity (anekadha *) of thesaktic* universe. This is critical,for it seems to be a distinctivetrait of mantric utterance asunderstood as an upaya* in theSSuV* that it is intrinsicallyand appropriately twofold. Justas "being Siva*" must, in thefinal analysis be thought of asintrinsically double,72 so, too,the disclosive force of mantric

utterance must be thought of asintrisically double. For Siva*,as for mantras, this intrinsicduality is the fruit and the"proof" of their intrinsic unity.

From one point of view, amantra discloses an apparently"external" object, the "devata*."This point of view is "lower''but entirely legitimate. Indeed,assuming that it is Siva's*"nature" to express himself asthe saktic* world, this point of

view is necessary. Thecomplementary point of viewis, however, "higher" preciselybecause it puts the "lower"point of view in the properperspective. From thisperspective no distinction maybe drawn between the mantra,the object of the mantra, andthe utterer of the mantra. Theutterance is directly disclosive.It is self-disclosive. One mightsay that it "saves" in that, for

every properly prepared adept,it is believed to disclose Siva*to himself.

Epistemology

A contemporary philosopher ofthe social sciences, Karl OttoApel, has observed that "alllinguistic utterances and,moreover, all meaningfulhuman actions and physicalexpressions (in so far as theycan be verbalized) involve

claims . . . and hence can beregarded as potentialarguments" (1973, 259). Inreaching this conclusion Apelhas appropriately drawn uponWittgenstein whoseSprachkritik has significantlyinfluenced his own work. Fromthis perspective evenmetaphoric statements whosecontexts are mythic must beunderstood implicitly to bemaking assertions, variously

about some aspect of thehuman world or about reality assuch. Ricoeur's exploration ofmetaphor also supports theconclusion that nonliterallanguage is implicitly "fact-stating." If Apel and Ricoeurare correct, as I am persuadedthey are, it follows that anassertion implicit in ametaphoric (or mythical)utterance earns no exemptionfrom the ordinary standards of

epistemology. Its truth or falsitymay, in principle, be evaluatedin a straightforward,conventional manner.

The instinct of most students ofmantra has been to stress its"symbolic" character, whilediscounting the Possibility thatmantras make cognitivelyjudicable claims about mattersof fact. If my reconstruction ofthe epistemological dimensionof mantric utterance, as it is

Portrayed in the SSuV*, is insome measure correct, thisposition must be reconsidered.If the utterance of a mantra isintended as a privileged act ofcognition and if its coherencepresupposes a complex ofmetaphors and myths, the truthor falsity of its indirect claimsabout matters of fact may beevaluated, providedand this is acrucial provisotheir implicitclaims can be translated into the

language of ordinary, directdiscourse.

Furthermore, if mantricutterance, in a redemptivecontext, intends itself asdisclosive, then appraising thetruth of its claims about realitycannot be incidental. It iscentral. The point of theutterance, what gives itsignificance in its own terms, isthe disclosure. Properlydescribed, in the context of theSSuV *, the utterance of a

mantra seems to present itselfas a social act, presupposing afamily of Saivite* metaphorsand myths, promising to be thatunique cognition that disclosesan individual's real identity asSiva*. If this is the case, thetheological implications cannotresponsibly be evaded. It makesa difference whether Siva* is"really there," whether theworld really is the way mantricutterance seeks to show the

person who uses it that it is.

Self-Disclosivity

The self-disclosivity of thewell-uttered mantra and theclaims it makes find clearexpression in SSuV* 2.7, whichcontains one of the mythiccosmogonies mentioned earlier.The preceding sutra* ("gururupaya*") having asserted theindispensibility of the guru, 2.7describes what one obtains

through him: "from a guru whois favorably disposed(prasanna) '[a disciple gains]perfect understanding of thecircle [of powers that emergefrom] Matrka*(matrkacakrasambodhah*.)'."

In the first portion of hiscommentary (60, line 9; 63, line3), Ksemaraja* summarizesapparently in his own wordsbut on the authority of the PTand other agamas*, the

emergence of the world ofcomplexity envisioned aslinguistically structured. Hepictures the complexity of theworld analogically with thecomplexity of language. Just asthe limited number of elements,phonemes (varnas*), in (theSanskrit) language may becombined in an infinite numberof sentences, so too thecognitive subjects and objectsof the world have the capacity

to form an infinite number ofcombinations. In both languageand cognitive interaction, thechaos of infinite possibility is'seen as structured andcontained within a finitenumber of categories. Both aretaken to be vehicles that onemay follow back to god, theircommon ground. God is theircommon substratum because heis accepted as beingwe wouldhave to say, metaphoricallyboth

Consciousness and the Word.

In the second portion of hiscommentary (63, line 3; 67, line8), Ksemaraja* expounds thesoteriological significance ofthis Tantric cosmology. Indoing so, he naturally focuseson the self-disclosive power ofmantric utterance, the utterancethat leads one to cognizeoneself as Siva*-who-is-the-Word. He begins with thesimple observation that one

should cause oneself torecollect, more precisely to re-cognize, the entirety of the verycomplex verbal cosmogony thathas just been summarized (itipratyabhijnapitum*).73 Theremainder of the commentary,in effect, is an explanation ofhow mantric utterancefacilitates this saving re-cognition.

Ksemaraja* begins with thestatement of his thesis: AHAM

("I"), the

great mantra, encapsulates thecosmos. He supports this thesisby a quotation fromUtpaladeva'sAjadapramatrsiddhi *:

Therefore the reality (tattvam)of the judgment "I"(ahamvimarsa*), whichaccounts for the efficacy of thegreat mantra(mahamantraviryatmano*), isthis: The cosmos (visvam*) is

simply that which is cocooned(garbhikrtam* etad atmakam*eva) by means of pratyahara*,between Siva* and sakti*, thatis to say, between "that beyondwhich there is nothing higher"(anuttara) and "the unstrucksound," [i.e., between a(akara*), the first letter of theSanskrit alphabet, and ha(hakara*), the last,respectively]. As has been saidby our illustrious master(paramesthi*) Utpaladeva:

For it is well known that thestate of being an "I"(ahambhava*) is the self-subsistence of illumination(prakasasyatmavisrantir*);moreover, this state is knownas stasis (visranti*) because,in it, dependence on anythingelse [external to itself] issuppressed(sarvapeksanirodhatah*);similarly [it is known] as self-dependence (svatantryam*),agency (kartrtvam*), andprimal lordship (mukhyam

isvarata*).74

In this sort of Saivite* Tantrathere is a tendency towardduplication. It is Siva* whobecomes the world, but he doesso in his feminine mode, asSakti*. AccordinglyKsemaraja*, having explainedthat Siva*, the cosmic "I,"becomes the verbal world,turns to Sakti*, to Matrka*, toidentify her with Siva*, the "I,"and to portray her as the womb

of the verbal cosmos:

The reality (tattvam) ofMatrka* that has thus beendelimited is precisely thatwhich has finally beenrevealed by the Kutabija*,[that is, the letter ksa*, (ksa-kara*)], which [is formed] bythe essential conjunction of"that beyond which there isnothing further," [the letter aunderstood to pervade theconsonants represented by ka],and visarga, [the sign for

aspiration which comes at thevery end of the Sanskritalphabet, understood torepresent the sibilantsincluding sa], which is to say,by the pratyahara* of ka-kara* and sa-kara*; this is asufficient clarification of thatwhich is secret.75

Having asserted the parallelismbetween "aham" and Matrka*,Ksemaraja* is ready to explainthat understanding of the circleof powers that emanate from

Matrka*, which one gains froma well-disposed guru:

[The word sambodha in thissutra* means] understanding(bodha) that is precisely(samyak) attaining(samavesa*) one's own self,which is a mass ofconsciousness and bliss, [thatis, understanding] thecollection of powers beginningwith anuttara, ananda*, andiccha*, which have alreadybeen mentioned, [powers that

make up] the circle that isconnected to

Matrka *, whose glory[prabhava*) has beenspecified in scriptural versesof this sort: "There is noscience (vidya*) higher thanMatrka*."76

After reference toAbhinavagupta's PTVivarana*and Tantraloka*, Ksemaraja*concludes his commentary onSSu* 2.7 with a long quotationattributed to the Siddhamrta*

and a verse from the SpK.These passages reassert thedialectical reciprocity of Siva*and Sakti*, or god and world,understood analogously to thereciprocity of a-kara* andvisarga, that is to say the vowela and the circle ofconsonents.77

The last lines from theSiddhamrta* and the versefrom the SpK underscore thesoteric value of the

mahamantra* AHAM, whichencompasses the universe, andof the guru without whom onecould not utilize it properly:

Mantras that did not begin witha and end with m would be [asuseless] as autumn clouds; thedefining characteristic of a guruis, accordingly, that he canreveal [a mantra] beginningwith a and ending with m.

Such a knowledgeable master(jnanin*), being, in effect, the

god Bhairava, merits worship(pujyah*) just as I, [Siva*,merit worship].

Because he knows that any[utterance], for example, asloka* or a gatha*, is endowedwith a as its beginning and mas its ending, [the guru] seesthe cosmos (sarva) as beingwholly mantric(mantratvenaiva).78

For Ksemaraja*, then, the greatmantra is a vital, effective tool

of redemption, the skeleton keyto the cosmos. It liberatesbecause it recapitulates in itsinner structure the innerstructure of bondage that isbelieved to be at once linguisticand cognitive. So SpK 3. 16:

It is Siva* sakti*, that is, hispower to act, who, dwellingwithin limited creatures, causesbondage;When she is known as herselfthe path, she is the one who

makes perfection (siddhi)possible.79

Conclusion

How should we understand thegreat mantra AHAM? How maywe translate it? Keeping ourexegesis of Ksemaraja's*understanding in mind, Ipropose that it be read as asentence consisting of a singleword. "I" is the subject of thesentence; its predicate has to be

supplied. There would seem tobe two possibilities. If oneconcludes that the impliedreferent is personal, then thegreat mantra may be translatedas "I [am Siva*]!" If oneconcludes that the impliedreferent is impersonal, then itmay be translated as "I [amThat]!" In the first case, wewould have to classify thesentence as mythological. In thesecond instance, we can admit

that it is meant literally. If thetwo sentences are taken, asmust

surely be the case, to have thesame referent, then the wordThat in the second sentencemust refer to that to which theword Siva * refersmetaphorically. What can thatbe but the cosmos understoodcomprehensively as theredeeming object of religiousfascination. The mantra AHAMtaken to mean "I am Siva*!" isthus revealed to be a

metaphorical utterance whoseindirect reference is preciselyconveyed through the literalstatement "I am That!"

If one were a contemporarySaivite* theologian, such anonmythological translation ofthe mantra AHAM could be ofconsiderable interest. Withoutdoubt, it is the Hindu tradition'smetaphorical density that givesit emotive appeal. If, however,one wants to defend its claims

about matters of fact asinternally coherent and true, ashaving both meaning (Sinn)and Reference (Bedeutung),one has to know what it isreally talking about. Otherwise,one has no way of determiningwhether it is epistemologicallyresponsible to credit thattradition's claims. (Of course, itmay be psychologically andsocially responsible, and formany people, that will be more

than sufficient.)

To be sure, neither Ksemaraja*nor the Saivagamic* texts forwhich he attempts to provide arational theology have thevocabulary to speak of religiouslanguage in terms of themodern, Western categories of"myth" and "metaphor." Isuspect, however, that Saiva*Tantra, as systematized in theSSuV*, makes something likethe same point in its own terms.

We have just seen that themantra AHAM, for the SSuV*the Mahavakya* of Saiva*Tantra, may be taken literally. Itis interesting that it is pairedwith another mantra, whichphonemically mirrors it whilebeing constructed in the sameway and making the samepoint. If the mantra AHAMmeans "I am That!" it may beput into Sanskrit as "so 'ham,''and this, in fact, is frequently

done. The mirror image of "so'ham" is the mantra HAMSAH*.Since the word hamsa* refersto the mythological gander longtaken to symbolize the Self, thismantra may be translated, "[Iam] the Cosmic Bird."Ksemaraja* deals with it inSSuV* 3.27, with which wemay conclude the explorationof mantric utterance asintentionally disclosive.

The sutra*, speaking of

someone who has become"equivalent to Siva*"(Sivatulya*, 3.25 [110]), says: "[All of his] discourse is therepetition [of the Name of God](katha* japah*)" (113).Ksemaraja* exegetes this in afamiliar manner:

[The discourse of a master isjapa] because he truly hasconstant inner realization(bhavana*) of being thesupreme "I" (paraham*). This

is in accordance with themaxim of the SvT: 'I myself amthe supreme Hamsa*, Siva*,the primal cause'."80

As the hamsa* is Siva*, so,too, the knowledge attainedthrought the HAM-SA andAHAM mantras is one:

Without exception, theconversation of [an adept who]has acquired the unfabricatedcognition "I"(akrtakahamvimarsarudhasya*), [the cognition] that is reallythe great mantra [AHAM,]becomes japa, which is to say,the incessant repetition of thecognition (vimarsa*) of oneselfas god (svatmadevata*).81

We have come full circle, itwould appear. In this passage,

the SSuV* offers as the sign ofthe highest spiritual attainmentnothing more than japa, theendless muttering of scaredsyllables, one of the mostcommon social and ritualpractices of India. While anexamination of japa is beyondthe scope of this paper, astrategy may be suggested, inkeeping with the dialecticalsubtlety of Kasmiri Saivite*Tantra.

Just as an intrinsic duality isbelieved to be running throughSiva* and the cosmos hebecomes; just as language isbelieved to express itself inboth a supreme form as theWord (Paravac*) and inpenulitmate forms; just asmantric utterance can besocially distinguished intoquotidian and redemptivecategories according to context;so, too, japa reveals itself as a

complex phenomenon varyingwith context. From theperspective I have adopted inthis paper, this is exactly whatone would expect. A singlesentence can be used to conveydifferent meanings dependingon circumstances and intention.For example, if I were to utterthe mantra AHAM eighteenthousand times, the firstutterance in the sequence oughtto be significantly different

from the last. The point of theendless repetition, after all,would not be for me to losemyself in trance, but for me assadhaka* to get it right. Closeas I might eventually come, theutterance would be "unhappy"unless and until it becameredemptive; that is, unless anduntil I really, at each stage, hadgotten the "final" point.

This is, I think, whatKsemaraja* has in mind when

he concludes the commentaryon SSu* 3.27 by pointing outthat getting the utterance of thegreat mantra correct is at oncethe easiest and the mostdifficult of tasks. He cites twoverses from the VBT thatsummarize what he has to sayabout the dialectical self-disclosity of mantric utterance:

Japa is the progressiverealization of the supreme state(pare bhave*);

It is precisely thisone's ownprimeval sound (svayam*nado*) which is a mantrathat isto be repeated (jap-);

With the letter sa [the breath] isexpelled, with the letter ha itreenters;The individual being (jiva*)constantly repeats the mantra,"hamsa*, hamsa*"

Day and night, 21,600 [times]this repetition [of the mantra]of the goddess is enjoined;It is simple to achieve this, but

difficult for dullards.82

In the modern West, we haveoften assumed that religion is afundamentally alinguisticphenomenon. The very termreligion is commonly taken torefer, as Rilke put it, to that"experience" (Erlebnis) forwhich "the domains of thesayable did not really seem tosuffice" (1938, 227). In thisregard, the tradition of radicalmonotheism and certain strands

of Western philosophy agree.Wittgenstein, too, in both the Tand PI was inclined by trainingand temperament to see thatwhich could not be spoken asmore valuable than that whichcould. Many mystical traditionsbeyond the West furthersupport this picture of theultimate as ineffable.

There is another story,however. The Wittgensteinianmethod does not necessitate this

faith in the inarticulate. Readthe way I have suggested andused the way I have attemptedto use it, it might lead to theopposite conclusion: Anythingsignificant can be articulated,albeit imperfectly or in aneccentric manner. This paperattempted to explore one strandof thought that dissents fromthe widespread adulation ofmystic silence. The centraltradition of Kasmir * Saivism*

figures the ultimate mythicallyas Transcendental Discourse(Paravac*), as the goddessSakti*. Ontologically, it assertsthat the ultimate istranscendentally linguistic, for itis that which makes possiblethe mundane conversation ofmen. Soteriologically, it teachesthat uttering the great mantra isthe tool that puts one in touchwith her (or it). In the end, itholds out the hope that, for

those who know, ordinarydiscourse as a whole will beredemptive. Wittgenstein'sSprachkritik is meant to betherapeutic. So, too mutatismutandis, the utterance ofmantras is meant to betherapeutic. If, for a time, weare able to put aside some ofour assumptions andprejudices, the study of mantramight be similarly salutory.Perhaps, it can help us

overcome the linguistic povertyof Western monotheism.Perhaps, it can teach us tounderstand the world through aradically different verbal frame.

Notes

1. The phrase Kasmir*Saivism* is a recent Westerninvention and does notcorrespond to any term in theindigenous vocabulary. While itwould be best if the term fell

into disuse, it is conventionaland convenient. Forbibliographical orientation seeAlper (1979, 386; 387 n. 1, 403-407 n. 7). An introductoryhandbook, Approaching theSaivism* of Kasmir*, iscurrently being prepared. It isscheduled to appear in the StateUniversity of New York PressSeries on the Saiva* Traditionsof Kasmir*; it will contain acomprehensive annotated

bibliography.

On the problem of definingmantra, see the introduction tothis volume. There I propose arough distinction between the"quotidian" and the"redemptive" use of mantras.While the various Saivagamic*preceptorial traditions surelyknew of and accepted thequotidian use of mantras, theSSuV* focuses on theredemptive. In this essay, I thus

limit myself to those mantricutterances believed to effect (orto express) freedom as such.

The first epigraph is takenfrom If on a Winter's Night aTraveler (New York: HarcourtBrace Jovanovitch, 1981), p.193. The second, na tair[=mantrair] vina * bhavecchabdo nartho* napi* citergatih*, is quoted byAbhinavagupta in the IPKV1.5.14 (KSTS 22:212). Thethird is yadi rahasyartho* nabuddhyate, tasmat*

sadgurusaparya* karya* (55).I would like to acknowledgevaluable contributions madeduring my work on this essayby my colleagues Lonnie D.Kliever and Charles M. Wood,by John Taber (Case WesternReserve University, Cleveland),and by Osbourne P. Wiggins(the New School for SocialResearch, New York). I amparticularly indebted to AndréPadoux (Centre national de

recherche scientifique, Paris),who kindly read the manuscriptand suggested a number ofimprovements. Needless to say,none of these individuals isresponsible for any errors thatremain in my account. I alsowish to acknowledge theencouragement of my friendsMarie Pardue and JockoDiGiacomo.

2. By now, the literature onWittgenstein is enormous. A

brief orientation may be foundin Toulmin (1969) or Cavell(1962); for a more extensivesurvey, one might consult thetwo volumes of Finch (1971,1977); and a thoughtful guide toreading Wittgenstein for oneselfis Coope and associates (1970).I cite Wittgen-stein in thestandard English translationswhile providing the Germanoriginal as appropriate. I followthe usual conventions in citing

paragraph rather than pagewhenever possible.

3. It would be accurate to saythat there was a single pan-Indian Agamic* tradition,which, in the course of history,became regionally refracted. Noone has yet definitivelycatalogued the agamas*recognized by the various"regional" Saivisms*, no lessthe different intersectingKasmiri* perceptorial-

soteriological traditions. TheSSuV* cites a number ofunpublished or problematicAgamas*. Tracing and collatingquotations from these sourcesis a desideratum. I use a certainnumber of Saivagamic*technical terms in this essay. Inmost cases, one may findreasonably clear Englishequivalents, but such termsdefy simple, precise translation:uccara*, prakasa* (see Alper

1979), bindu, bija*,mantroddhara* (see Padoux1978a), malini*,varna*,sakticakra*sabdarasi*, and spanda. See,in general, Padoux (1963) andthe works of Lilian Silburn(1961; 1980; 1983).

4. All translations from theSSu* and SSuV* are my ownunless otherwise noted. Theyare based on the text in KSTS 1[=J. C. Chatterji 1911] and cited

by chapter (unmesa*) and sutraas well as page and, as needed,line. The SSu* and the V havebeen translated several times:twice into English (ShrinivasIyengar 1912; Jaideva Singh1979), once into French(Silburn 1980); there are alsoItalian (Torella 1979) and Hinditranslations, but I had not yetseen them at the time this essaywas written. The most reliableof these translations are by

Silburn and Torella; JaidevSingh's should be read asaninterestingEnglish bhasya*.On the several accounts of the"revelation" of the SSu* toVasugupta see Chatterji (1916[1914] 26ff.). Survivingcommentaries on the SSu*include, in addition to theSSuV*, an anonymous Vrtti*,a Varttika* by Bhaskara (fl.mid-tenth century) [both=KSTS 4], and a Varttika* by

Varadaraja* (fl. fifteenthcentury) [=KSTS 43]. The exactrelationships among thesecommentaries are not entirelydear. Chat-

terji (1916 [1914], 29f., 34)is inclined to credit Bhaskara *(this is not the commentator ofAbhinava's IPKV) withpreserving the most authenticinterpretation of the Sutras*.The original meaning of theSSu* is beyond the scope ofthis essay. Cf., n. 22 of thisessay.

5. In addition to sivatulya*

(3.25), for example, the sutras*speak of a "getting together"(samghana*, samghatta*), a"becoming connected"(sambandha), a "beingimmersed in" (ni-majj), an"entering into'' (pra-vis*)Siva*; Ksemaraja* speaks of"penetration" (samaveaa*) and"fusion" (samarasya*), forexample. A detailed study ofthis vocabulary is adesideratum.

6. In his commentary,Ksemaraja* effectively treatsthe SpK as an elucidativeappendix to the SSu*. Ingeneral, one may see JaidevaSingh's (1980) translation of theSpK with Ksemaraja's*commentary, the Nirnaya*(SpN). In dating the majorKasmiri* Saiva* figures, Igenerally cite Rastogi's (1979)revision of Pandey's (1954)calculations.

7. Staal is certainly correct incautioning us not to assumethat a "Hindu" scholasticinterpretation of Mantrasastra*is necessarily accurate merelybecause it is indigenous. In thebroadest sense, however,scholarly interpretations ofMantrasastra* cumulativelybecome one with thephenomenon they purport toelucidate; hence, they meritelucidation in their own right.

Even if one wished to deny thisto "unfriendly" Westerninterpretations, it surely holdsfor traditional ones.

8. Wittgenstein himself did notset out to construct such atypology. To do so is notfollowing in Wittgenstein'sfootsteps; it is not practicingphilosophy the way he did. It isproposing a disciplinaryamendment to his philosophicalprogram.

9. As I discussed in theIntroduction to this volume,whether a mantric utterance islinguistic is disputed. I believethat one could frame anargument to demonstrate thelinguistic nature of mantra, butI do not attempt to do so here.Another possibility might be toargue that ostensiblynonlinguistic mantras must beunderstood analogically withthose that are linguistic, rather

than vice versa. Or, one mightargue that the utterance of amantra is a linguistic act in thatit functions linguistically.

10. On the sociologicaladaptation of Wittgensteinianthought, see Dallmayr andMcCarthy (1977), part III ("TheWittgensteinianReformulation"). Thetheological use of theWittgensteinian tradition canbest be grasped by reviewing

the work of D. Z. Phillips inlight of Kai Nielsen's critiquesof what he has labeledWittgensteinian fideism (e.g.,1967, 1973). On Wittgensteinand the philosophy of religion,besides Sherry, there are theworks and collections of High(1967, 1969), Hudson (1968,1975), Trigg (1973), andKeightley (1976); see also thereview article of Whittaker(1978).

11. The status of the aesthetic,the ethical, the logical, and themystical in the Tractatus areincisively surveyed in Zemach(1964-65); cf. Lucier (1973).

12. The term language-game isused throughout PI; see inparticular 1-38. It is

important to keep in mindthat initially language-game isused analogically, Wittgensteincompares ways of speaking(languages) to games; onlysecondarily does he come tospeak of speaking as, in fact, a"game"; see Specht (1969),Chapter II ("The language-game as model concept inWittgenstein's theory oflanguage"), and Baker and

Hacker (1980) 1.6 (language-games). On the tension betweenthe ''transcendental" and"realistic" interpretations oflanguage in Wittgenstein, seeHarries (1968). Form of life isused only fives times in PI,paragraphs 19, 23, 41, and Pt.II, pp. 174 and 226. On someof the options in interpretingform of life, see Hunter (1971).

13. Hence, the famousaphorism (PI 43); "For a large

class of casesthough not forallin which we employ theword meaning it can be definedthus: the meaning of a word isits use in the language" (Mankann für eine grosse Klasse vonFällen der Benützung desWortes "Bedeutung"wenn auchnicht für alle Fälle seinerBenützungdieses Wort soeklären: Die Bedeutung einesWortes ist sein Gebrauch inder Sprache). An exploration

of this thesis may be found inHallett (1967).

14. Although speech act is atechnical term used especiallyby John Searle in hiselaboration of Austin's analysisof language, it seems equallyappropriate in a Wittgensteiniansetting.

15. Kännte Einer eine Sekundelang innige Liebe oderHofnung empfinden,was immer

dieser Sekunde voranging,oder ihr folgt?Was jetztgeschieht, hat Bedeutung indieser Umgebung. DieUmgebung gibt ihm dieWichtigkeit.

16. A phenomeonologicalreading of Wittgenstein isventured by Gier (1981); seeespecially Chapter 6, "The Life-world".

17. Sherry's analysis of the

method implicit inWittgensteinian thoughtprovides a convenient summaryof the main methodologicalissues. This should not obscureits artificiality. The questions itseparates for the purpose ofanalysis must in actuality oftenbe addressed to the materialone is interrogating in an untidymelange.

18. For orientation to thefideism controversy in recent

Protestant theology, seeDiamond and Litzenberg(1975); on traditional Westernfideism, one might readMontaigne, in the context ofPopkin (1979).

19. The argument is scatteredthrough Sherry (1977), relevantpassages can befound on 21,40, 48, 59, 172ff., 180ff., 211.

20. The most astute portrayal of"popular" Hinduism from this

perspective remains CarlGustave Diehl's (1956)Instrument and Purpose. For acomplementary portrait of"folk" Hinduism, see Abbott(1933), The Keys of Power.

21. This theme is explored in PI240, and Part II, p. 223; and atgreater length in the laterworks, for example, Z 114-17,OC 167, 204.

22. For the purposes of this

inquiry, one may treat the threesections into which bothKsemaraja * and Bhaskara*divide the SSu* together, forno significant difference isapparent in their understandingof mantra. A discussion of the

treatment of upaya * in theSSu* as a whole cannot beoffered here. One should keepin mind, however, that thesutras* were probably subjectto diverse preceptorialinterpretation from the start.Ksemaraja*, whose text hasseventy-seven sutras*, dubs thethree chapters (unmesas*) ofhis commentary theSambhavopaya-*, the

Saktopaya-*, and theAnavopaya-*, respectively.Bhaskara*, whose text hasseventy-nine sutras*, titles thecorresponding three chapters(prakasas*) of his commentarythe Samanyacit-*, theSahajavidyodaya-, and theVibhutispanda-.

Most studies of Kasiri*Saivism* take Ksemaraja's*analysis at face value andassume that "Kasmir*

Saivism*" teaches three or, ifone considers anupaya* a path,four "paths." This ismisleading. Even a cursoryreading of the relevant,published Saivagamic* sourcesreveals that no single schemefor codifying and classilyingtechniques was recognized toaid in attaining liberation.Minimally, the tradition of three(or four) upayas* must bedifferentiated from that of the

six adhavans.

The theory of three upayas*quite properly strikes one as ascholastic construction,attempting to impose order on adisorderly body of traditionaltechniques; it has benefitedfrom its tidiness and from theprestige of Abhinavagupta,who utilizes it in the TA* andwho presumably invented it.Critical examination suggeststhat the SSuV* itself attempts

to reconcile a myriad ofsoteriologically distinct, butoverlapping, techniques. Thus,it is prudent to takeKsemaraja's* classificatoryscheme with caution. Noteespecially that theSambhavopaya* is so called,not (as is sometimes said)because it is a "path of Siva*"as opposed to Sakti*, butbecause according to it theculminating experience of

human life is mergence withSakti*, with Siva's* capability;it is called Sabhavopaya*because it focuses on becomingBhairava. Even as "orthodox"an interpreter as Jaideva Singhrecognizes that Ksemaraja's*scheme cannot be appliedmechanically, cf. his discussionof the "dis-cordant" referencesto Saktopaya* andSambhavopaya* in the thirdunmesa* (1979, xliff.). In any

case, a definitive sorting out ofall this awaits an elucidation ofthe sources of the TA* of thesort being assayed by AlexisSanderson (1986).

23. Atmano* bhairavamrupam* blavayed* yas tupurusah / tasya mantrah*prasiddhyanti nityayuktasyasundari//(20). This verse doesnot seem to be found in thepublished text of the SvT; theeditor of the KSTS text, J. C.

Chatterji (1911, 270) indicatesthat the quotation is a variant ofSvT 2.142 (1.80) (not 2.13!) towhich verse Silburn (1980, 42)also refers.

24. It is explicitly recognized, ofcourse, that there can be"defects" in the attempted useof a mantra. Elaborateclassifications of possibledefects and methods to rectifythem are contained in treatiseson Mantrasatra*. In allowing

for errors and theirrectification, Mantrasatra* isshowing that self-protectivecunning that usuallycharacterizes expert systems.

25. Cf. the discussion of"Infelicities" in Austin (1962,14ff.). In a paper read at theAmerican Oriental Society in1982, I sketched a preliminarydefense of the application ofspeech-act theory to mantricutterance. In that paper, which I

hope to revise for publication, Iargued that "the uttering of amantra is perlocu-

tionary in its intention, but illocutionary in itsactuality"; i.e., its effect. To put this in terms of Searle'srevision of Austin's categories, the sort of redemptivemantras with which I am here concerned might beconsidered "declarations" that "overlap" with the class of"assertives" (cf. Searle 1979a, 19f.).

26. Etad bandhaprasamopayam *upeyavisrantisatattvam* adisati* (18).

27. Na samdhanam* vina* diksasadhanam/ na mantro mantrayuktis* ca nayogakarsanam* tatha*// (39). Ksemaraja* attributes this

to a Laksmikaularnava*; I have been unable to ascertainwhether a text of that name is extant; the exact force of"mantrayukti" is unclear to me.28. Bhavanam* hi atraantarmukhodyantrtapadavimarsanam* eva (20). Silburnrecognizes the dialectical tension when she treatsudyantrta*, and related terms, as indicative of a "intense," an "élan purement intérieur au moment duretour à l'indifférencié, mais toujours élan intérieurpropre au premier moment du Désir (contient virtuellement tout ce qui se développa par lasuite" [emphasis mine] (12 and see glossary).

29. My translation of the term vimarsa

convictions about the sort of technical term it is. It isoften interpreted as if it were part of a system of egopsychology. In contrast, I am persuaded that it is part ofa system of transcendental metaphysics. If I am correct, itrefers to the transcendental capacity of Siva* that allowshim to objectify himself as the subject, to make thejudgment "I am Siva*." I have argued for thisunderstanding, not with as much clarity and accuracy as Iwould like, in a paper to appear in 1987. I expect toreturn to the issue.

30. The context is established by Sutra* 2.1 mantrah*), which I shall discuss later; mantrasya

anusamdhitsaprathamonmesavastambhaprayatanatma*akrtako* yah* prayatnah* sa eva sadhako*,mantrayitur mantradevatatadatmyapradah*. (49).31.

amisam* tu yatha* khasthah* sampasyan* sakunih*priye ksipram* akarsayed* yadvad vegena sahajenatu// tadvad eva hi yogindro* mano bindum*vikarsayet* yatha* saro* dhanuhsamstho*yatnenatadya* dhavati* tatha* uccarenaiva* dhavati* (49).

32.

akrtakanijodyogabalena* yogindro

bindum* vikarsayet* paraprakasatmatam* prapayet*iti/ tatha* binduh* paraprakasah*akrtakodyantrtatmana* uccarena* dhavatiprasarati ity arthah*/ (49f.)

Ksemaraja* quite appropriately interprets "bindum*" as a double accusative, "direct object, "bindu" indicating the indirect object.

33. See Chapter 2, Staal's contribution to this volume.Obviously, because I am persuaded that the utilization ofmantras can count as an instance of linguistic activity, Icannot follow Staal in seeing mantra as ritual gesturesimpliciter.

34. I use the term public as the opposite of private in the

sense of individual,

as in the phrase private language.terms, the rituals of the "householder" arepublic while the practices of a hermit are not.

35. Cf. Apel (1973, 258f.) who, drawing uponWittgenstein, speaks of a "Gemeinschaft vonDenkern" and an"Argumentationsgemeinschaft."

36. See the relevant sections of theBibliography.

37. Grnati * upadisati* tattvikam* artham iti

guruh; so 'tra vyaptipradarsakatvena* upayah*(59). The exact meaning of vyapti*sentence is unclear to me. My translationfollows J. C. Chatterji (59, n. 33) who glosses:vyaptir* atra mudravirya-mantraviryasvariupa*.38.

Gurubhavah*. parma* tirtham*anyatirtham* nirarthakamSarvatirthasrayam* devi* padangustham*ca vartate (54).

39.

Dhyanamulam* guror* murtih*

pujamulam* guroh* padamMantramulam* guror vakyam*moksamulam* guroh* krpa* (28).

40. Sa gurur matsamah. proktomantraviryaprakasakah* (59). This passage istaken from MVT 2.10.

41.Agadhasamsayambhodhisamuttaranatarinim*/vande... gurubharatim* (59). This passage istaken from SpK 3.20 [=4.1].

42. Gurur va* paramesvari* anugrahika*saktih*/ Yathoktam* srimalinivijaye*

"sakticakram* tad evoktam* guruvaktram*tad ucyate" (60).43. Srimantrisirobhairave* 'pi "gurorgurutara* saktir* guruvaktragata* bhavet" iti.Saiva avakasam* dadati* upayah

44.

Sarve varnatmaka* mantras* te casaktyatmakah* priye saktis* tu matrkajneya* sa* ca jneya* sivatmika* (51).

This verse and the verses from the samepassage cited later presuppose a number oftechnical terms whose sitz im leben

Tantric, meditative cosmology that envisionsthe evolution of the world within god as sonic.No translation can capture all of theconnotations of the original: Succintly, is "transcendental phoneme"; matrkamother [of the cosmos]"; sabdarasi[transcendental] mass of words/sounds [fromwhich the cosmos evolves]"; malini[transcendental] sequence of phonemes [whichstructures the cosmic evolution]"; the verbssphr-*, sphar-*, sphur-* (to pulsate) allude tothe theory of spanda, the evolution of thecosmos structured by pulsating sonic energies.

45.Na jananti* gurum* devam*sastroktan*samayams* tatha*dambhakautilyanirata* laukyarthah*kriyayojjhitah* asmat* tu karanad* devimaya viryam* pragopitam tena guptena teguptah* sesa* varnas* tu kevalah*. (51).

46. Tatraiva ca ayam arthah* atirahasyo 'pivitatya sphutikrtah* (51). I translate the assumption that, consciously or not, it is anallusion to the derivation of the word from tan (to extend).

47. Mahahradanusamdhanan * mantraviryanubhavah*(44). The term hrada, which I translate as lake, in order toreinforce the imagery of soteric immersion also means "[primal] sound." The following passage uses technicalconcepts that cannot be explicated here.

48.tasyanusamdhanat*, antarmukhataya* anaratamtattadatmyavimarsanat*; vak-syamanasya*sabdarasispharatmakaparahantavimarsamayasya*mantraviryasyanubhavah*., svatmarupatayasphuranam*. bhavati/ ata eva srimalintvijaye* 'ya* sasaktir* jagaddhatuh.* /' ity upakramya

icchadipramukhapancasadbhedarupataya* matrka-malinirupatam* asesavisvamayim* sakteh*. pradarsya*,tata eva mantroddharo* darsitah*; iti paraiva saktirmahahradah*; tatah* tadanusamdhanat* matrka-malinisatattvamantraviryanubhava* iti yuktum uktam/(44-45).49. That is, the decoding of the elements of the mantraprecedes its construction. I wish to thank Andrü Padoux,who some time ago pointed out the relevance ofSchoterman's discussion of prastara

50.varnasamghattanasariranambhagavati* vyakhyatarupa* vidyasarirasattaiti pradarsitam*/ pratyagamam* ca

matrkamalintprastarapurvakam*mantroddharakathanasya* ayam eva asayah51. This analogy was suggested by Canfield (1981, 26),whose exact words I have borrowed, in part.

52. I use the term theodicy in the extended sociologicalsense associated with Weber. The phrase "OK world" isborrowed from Peter Berger (1968).

53. Cetyate vimrsyate* anena parampurnasphurattasatattvaprasadapranavadivimarsarupam*samvedana*; tad eva mantryate guptam, antar abhedenavimrsyate* paramesvarupam* anena, iti krtvarnantrah*/ ata eva ca

parasphurattatmakamananadharmatmata*,bhedamayasamsaraprasamanatmakatranadharmata* caasya nirucyate/ (47); the pranavaidentity of the prasada* mantra seems to vary fromtradition to tradition, here it is SAUH.54. Atha ca mantradevatavimarsaparatvenapraptatatsamarasyam* aradhakacittamna tu vicitravarnasamghattanamatrakam*/ (47f.).

55.

Prthanmantrah*. prhanmantri* na siddhyati kadacana*jnanamulam* idam* sarvam anyatha(48).

56.Uccaryamana* ye mantra* na mantramsviduh* mohita* devagandharva* rnithyajnanena*garvitah* (48).

57.

mantranam* jivabhuta* tu ya* taya* hina* vararohe* nisphalah*. saradabhravat*(48).

58. I have in mind especially the mytheme of Siva* as theGod-who-is-the-world, a root mytheme that enabled theSaiva* traditions to make creative use, first, of theSamkhyan* scheme of psychocosmic evolution and,second, of the Tantric scheme of the sonic evolution of

Sakti*. The source of this mythic-theological complexmight weft be the Vedic cycle of Prajapati*; for anintriguing

exploration of this, see Deppert (1977). I recognize that myinsistence on the mythic background of Saiva * requires substantiation that I cannot attempt to provide in thisessay.

59. My understanding of metaphor is generally indebted to PaulRicoeur. I have borrowed the notion of "root metaphor" fromStephen Pepper, World Hypothesesof myth is dependent on Rudolph Bult-mann's discussion of"demythologization." I am not, however, following these threeauthors systematically.

60. Speaking of the "myth" of Matrka* and treating

a name as well as a term is speculative, but I think justified bycontext. It serves the secondary purpose of indicating thattantric "verbal cosmogonies" merit study in their own right.61. Atha kathamasyajnanatmakajnanayonivargakalasarirarupasya* trividhasyamalasya bandhakatvam ity aha* (16). Neither a discussion ofthe technical terms used in this statement nor a generalevaluation of Ksemaraja's* "doctrine of evil" is possible here.In SSuV* 1.1-2, Ksemaraja* interprets (anavamala* (the blemish of individuality); yonivarga(literally, the class of root causes) as of maya*), and kalasarira* (literally, the body of activities) askarmamala* (the blemish of karma

62. Yad etat trividhamalasvarupam* apurnam*manyatabhinnavedyapratha-subhasubhavasanatmakam*vividham* jnanarupam* uktam (16).

63. Tasya adiksantarupa* ajnatavisvajanani* (16).

64. Tattatsamkucitavedyabhasatmano* jnanasya* "apurno*'smi," "ksamah* sthulo* vasmi*," "agnistomaityaditattadvikalpakasavikalpakavabhasaparamarsamayasya*tattadvacakasabdanuvedhadvarena*sokasmayaharsaragdirupatam* adadhana* (16f.). Note thatthree paradigmatic cognitions illustrate the threefold blemish,anava-*, mayiya-*, and karmamala

that, in striking contrast with the usage of the Buddhist1ogicians, according to this scheme both nirvikalpaka cognitions are understood, from an ultimateperspective, to be verbal.65.

Karandhracitimadhyastha* brahmapasavalambikah*pithesvaryo* mahaghora* mohayanti muhurmuhuh* (17).

The technical terms in this verse refer to yogicphysiognomy. For explication, see the various translations.

66. Vargakaladyadhisthatrbrahmyadisaktisrenisobhini*srisarvaviradyagamaprasid-dhalipikramasamnivesotthapika*ambajyestharaudrivamakhyasakticakracumbita* saktir

adhisthatri* (17).67. Tadadhisthanad* eva hi antara'bhedanusamdhivandhyatvat* ksanam api alabdhavisrantinibahirmukhany* eva jnanani*, ity yuktaiva esam*bandhakatvoktih. (17).

68. etac casabdarasisamutthasya* saktivargasya* bhogyatam

kaltlviluptavibhavo * gatah*.san sa pasuh*. smrtah*]

ity karikaya*,savrupavarane* casya*saktayah* satatotthitah*[yatah* sabdanuvedhena* navina* pratyayodbhavah*] iti cakarikaya* samgrhitam* (17f.).

The first quotation is SpK 3.13(KSTS 42:65), the second is SpK3.15 (KSTS 42:70).

69.tadakramya* balam* mantrah*sarvajnabalasalinah*.pravartante 'dhikaraya*karananiva* dehinam* tatraivasampraliyante* santarupa*nirafijanah*saharadhakacittena* tenaitesivadharminah* (KSTS 42.45).

My translation of a-kram- asresort to was suggested by that ofJaidev Singh (1980, 110). In thispassage, mantras are taken to

"exist" on several levels of reality:on the mundane level, they areutterances; on higher levels, theyare deities. In the SpN on theseverses, Ksemaraja* describesmantras as "illustrious beings whofor the sake of the embodiedperform [the five great cosmicacts] including the emission andwithdrawal [of the world] and theobscuring and unveiling [ofultimate reality], exuberantly,expansively, by virtue of their

characteristic powers such asomniscience" (bhagavanto ...mantrah* sarvajnabalena*sarvajnatvadisamarthyena*slaghamana* jrmbhamana*adhikaraya* dehinam*pravartantesrstisamharatirodhananugrahadi*kurvantity* arthah* (KSTS42.45). A final assessment ofKsemaraja's* understanding ofmantra will have to take intoaccount the SpN as well as the

Saivagamic* commentaries.70. Na caivam api udasinena*anena bhavyam* apitubijavadhanam* (15)

kartavyam iti sesah*./ bijam*visakaranam* sphurattatma*para* saktih*/ yad uktam*srimrtyujidbhattarake*

sa* yonih* sarvadevanam*saktinam* capy* anekdha*

agnisomatmika* yonis tatah*sarvam* pravartate

ityadi/ tatra paralaktyatmani*bije*, avadhanam* bhuyo*bhuyas* cittanivesanam*karyam* (94).

Mrtyujit* is another name forthe Netra Tantra. This passage isfound at 7.40 (KSTS 46.170). Thedvandva "agnisoma*" is acommon figure of speech in thisliterature for "fundamentaloppositions." J. C. Chatterji (94, n.62) glossessamharasrstipramanaprameya-

pranapana-suryasomadisabdabhidheya*.

71. Bija* has both a singular and aplural reference, to the womb ofthe cosmos and to the constituentelements out of which mantras areconstructed, respectively.

72. If one were writing acontemporary, "liberal Hindu"defense of Mantrasastra*, thiscould, I think, provide atheological rationale for endorsing,

or at least tolerating, quotidianmantras, as well as a way toaccount for their reputed success.73. The object of this recollectionis visvam*. It is presumably a suigeneris act of cognition rather thana mere meditative recapitulation ofthe cosmic order. An

exact delineation of the meaning ofpratyabhijna * for Ksemaraja* and the otherwriters in his tradition remains a significantdesideratum.

74.

Ata eva pratyaharayuktya*anuttaranhatabhyam* eva sivasaktibhyam*garbhikrtam* etad atmakam* eva visvamiti mahamantraviryatmano*'hamvimarsasya* tattvam/ yathoktamasmatparamesthi*srimadutpaladevapadaih*

prakasasyatmavisrantir* ahambhavo* hikirtitah*. ukta* saiva ca visrantih*.sarvapeksanirodhatah* svatantryamkartrtvam* mukhyam isvaratapi* ca/ iti(63).

The quotation is AJPS 22cd-23 (KSTS 34.90.My translation of anahata* as unstruck wassuggested by the comments of Jaidev Singh(1979, 113, n. 17). There is a double meaning;anahata* may also mean unslain; Silburn (68)translates it effectively as "le son non-issu depercussion." Pratyahara is a grammatical termand may be understood in this context as

referring to the elision of two sets of reference to the beginning of the first set and theend of the second.

75. Tadiyat paryantam* yah matrkayas*tattvam tad eva kakara-sakara-pratyaharena*anuttaravisargasamghattasarena* kutabijena*pradarsitam* ante; ity alam*rahasyaprakatanena*/(63). On ksa-karathe kutabija* see Padoux (1963, 242).

76. Evam vidhayah* '... na vidyaity amnayasucitaprabhavaya* matrkayah*sambandhinas* cakrasya

proktanuttaranandecchadisaktisamuhasya*cidanandaghanasvasvarupasamavesamayah*samyak bodho bhavati (63f.).77. In this passage akara seems to be equatedwith bindu and visarga with hakaraportraying aham as a double of Siva* andSakti*.

78.

Adimantyavihinas* tu mantrah* saradabhravat* guror laksanam* etavad*adimantyam* ca vedayet pujyahiva jnani* bhairavo devatatmakah*slokagathadi* yat kincid* adimantyayutam*

yatah* tasmad* vidams* tatha* mantratvenaiva pasyati* (66f.).

79.

Seyam* kriyatmika* saktih* sivasyapasuvartini* bandhayitri* svamargastha*jnata* siddhyupapadika* (67) [=SpK 3.16].

80. 'Aham eva paro hamsah* sivahparamakaranam*' itisrisvacchandanirupitanitya* nityamparahambhavanamayatvat* (113).

81.Mahamantratmakakrtakahamvimarsarudhasya*

yad yad alapadi* tat tad asyasvatmadevatavimarsanavaratavartanatma*japo jayate*/(113). My translation of the phrasesvatadevatavimarsanavaratavartanatma* intentionally polemical. One might translate, forexample, "the unceasing awareness of the deitywho is your Self." To me, such a translationobscures the point, which, I think, is as radical asit sounds.82.

Bhuyo* bhuyah* pare bhave* bhavanabhavyate* hi ya* japah* so 'tra svayamnado* mantratma* japya idrsah*

sakarena* bahiryati* hakarena* viset*punah* hamsa-hamsety* amum* mantramjivo* japati nityasah*

satsatani * divaratrau*sahasrany*ekavimsatih*

japo devya* vinirdistah*sulabho durlabhojadaih* (113f.) [= VB145, and 155f.].

Cf. Silburn (1961, 164, 170)for a discussion ofKsemaraja's* citation of theseverses.

ConclusionMantras What Are They?André Padoux*

"When I use a word," Humpty-Dumpty said in a rather scornfultone, "it means just what I chooseit to meanneither more nor less."

As he nears the end of thisbook, the reader may believe he

knows all there is to knowabout mantras. But, this wouldbe a great mistake: The subjectof mantras is so vast that muchmore still could be usefullywritten on itthough with therisk of making matters morerather than less obscure. Muchcould still be said, for instance,about Indian theories on thenature of mantras, as they weredeveloped in the Tantric period,in Kashmir or elsewhere. Or

else on certain practices,(ranging from the recitation ofVedic mantras and their uses asdescribed in the Brahmanas *to later phenomena such as thepeculiar and sometimes bizarrepractices of TantricMantrasastra*, with all itssectarian variants), to which,for lack of space, the precedingessays make only brief allusion.Not to mention the fact thatmantric practices and

speculations are not just thingsof the past, and thatcontemporary practitioners andtheoreticians of mantra mightalso be studied.1 This volume,finally, is concerned with theBrahmanic-Hindu tradition andleaves aside both Jainism andBuddhism. Jain Mantrasastra*,in fact, does not differ in itsessentials from the Hinduversion and is not verydeveloped. But, Buddhism,

whether from Ceylon, India,Tibet, China, or Japan, etc., is avast area containing many andvarious theories and practicesconcerning mantra. And,though this area is far fromunknown, it has never, I think,been assessed as a whole andso constitutes a possible fieldfor further research.

*I am grateful to Harvey Alperand to Frits Staal for theircomments and critisms on the

draft of this essay. A specialthank is due to Barbara Bray,friend and neighbor, whokindly read it and correctedthe English.

To say that a number ofquestions relating to mantrasmight still be studied implies nocriticism of the contents of thisbook nor of its authors, farfrom it. Neither does it meanthat I intend to fill the gaps towhich I have drawn attention; Iwould not presume to do so,even if I were able, which I amnot. What I should like toattempt here, since this can be

useful without beingimpertinent, is simply todevelop some of the ideas ordata put forward in thepreceding set of essays and,also, in conclusion, to mentionbriefly some relevant fields ofresearch that either haverecently been the object ofstudy or, in my opinion, mightwell be.

There can surely be no doubtabout the ''centrality of mantric

utterance" not only toSaivagamic * (Tantric)soteriology as Alper well pointsout in this book, but moregenerally to Tantric Hinduismof all sectarian tendencies. Thisis true in spite of the fact that,as a religious instrument orprocedure, mantra may beconsidered as somehowsubordinate to ritual action oryogic practice, if only because itis normally used within the

larger frame of ritual or yoga.(Yoga is taken here to includeall the corporeal-mental andspiritual practices of dhyana*and bhavana*, or those makinguse of the control of prana* inits general sense of cosmicenergy.)

Admittedly, a rite or a spiritualpractice may consist only of theutterance of a mantra. But suchan utterane, in any context, hasa meaning, an efficiency, a

usefulness, only with a view tothe end ascribed to that ritual orpractice and only insofar as ittakes place within this ritualpractice or action. There is nodoubt that the role of mantras isfundamental to Hinduism (notto Vedism, except in a differentway). The oft-quoted wordsfrom Principles of Tantra,"From the mother's womb tothe funeral pyre, a Hinduliterally lives and dies in

mantra" sound very pompousnowadays. Nevertheless, theyexpress a truth that, for TantricHinduism(and for a thousandyears, most Hinduism has beeneither Tantric or Tantricized)isunderlined by the fact thatMantrasastra* is often taken asa name for tantrasastra*: Thedoctrine of the Tantras is thatof the mantras.

The fundamental role ofmantras, their great variety, the

powers ascribed to them, andthe fact that belief in theirefficacy has survived in Indiafrom the Vedas down to ourown day does indeed confrontus with a problem: How is oneto explain the mantricphenomenon? Some of theauthors here (Staal, Wheelock,Alper) try to solve it or to tacklesome of its aspects, with greatpenetration. One must indeedtry to find out why mantras

exist and why they havesurvived even into our own"enlightened" age. What canexplain the persistent use of atype of utterance that, at firstsight, looks like nothing butabracadabra, "meaninglessjabber" as some Indologistsused to say? There is awidespread tendency now tobelieve that the existence ofmantras can be explainedrationally, even if the

phenomenon as such isirrational.

If this is to be done, however,I, for one, have no doubt thatmantras as they exist in actualfact (that is, in the area ofIndian civilization) can

be properly explained andunderstood only within theIndian tradition, with itsmetaphysical and mythicalnotions about speech. 2 This isa culture where speechvac*,which may perhaps be renderedas "the Word"3has always beenconsidered as essential, as ofdivine origin, as playing afundamental role in creation.The brahman*, a term which

became the name for theabsolute, in the Vedas, is thesacred word or speech. Thename (naman*) is the essenceof a thing. Speech is creative,"for by speech everything hereis done" (Satapatha-Brahmana* 8.1.2.9). But, also,"mind (mati) doubtless isspeech, for by means of speechone thinks everything here"(ibid. 8.1.2.8).

From the earliest period of

Indian culture, speech hasremained at its very center.Certain notions concerning thenature and the powers ofspeech, especially those of themantras, have always beenpresent, even if only in thebackground, forming the basisand directing the course of thewhole of Indian thought on thatsubject. In this context, it isworth noting that, from theoutset, the sort of speech or

word considered all-powerfulwas spoken not written: Allspeculations and practicesalways concerned, and stillconcern, the oral field only.Mantra is sound (sabda*) orword (vac*); it is never, at leastin its nature, written.4

To this, one should add that,since the Vedic period, in spiteof the superiority of the spokenword, the highest and mostefficacious form of that word

was not the loudest or the mostintense but, on the contrary, themost silent and subtlethe innerutterance, the purely mentalone. This is a fundamental traitof speech "á l'indienne." Indiancivilization, which, it seems,has more than any othercultural area given to speech orword (vac*) a central, basicrole and endlessly reflectedupon it, studied it, andconsidered it all powerful, the

divine energy itself; thiscivilization, in fact, has placedat the acme of speech, at theheart of every utterance, notsound but silence.

It is enough in this connectionto remind the reader that thewhispered utterance (upamsu*)of a mantra was alwaysconsidered higher than theaudible one, and highest of allwas the silent (tusnim*), that isto say the mental (manasa*),

utterance. Wheelock quotes inthis respect from the Laksmi*Tantra. One could easily citeearlier references, such as theLaws of Manu (2.85). Earlierstill, in the Brahmanas*,silence or indistinct orundefined (anirukta) speechrepresent the innumerable, theunlimited, "undefined meaningunlimited, he thereby layscomplete, unlimited, vigor intohim: therefore he answers here

undefinedly" (Satapatha-Brahamana* 5.4.4.13,Eggeling's 1882-1900translation). Silence, for theBrahmana*, is creative: Onespeaks in a low voice "sinceseed (retas) is cast silently"(ibid. 6.2.2.22). Wheelock,here, while stressing thecontinuity of this point fromVedism to Tantrism, alsounderscores the importance ofthe "silent rehearsal of the most

precious troths of homologybetween microcosm andmacrocosm." It is notimpossible, in this respect, thatthe layers of sound fromarticulate to inarticulate mayreflect, or correspond to, ahistorical development. But itsurely appears that, from the

Vedic to the Tantric period, themantras tend to become moreand more repetitive (Wheelockpage 119), to have anincreasingly poorer linguisticcontent and an ever reducedphonetic variety, thus in someway tending toward silence. Anevolution that may well be due,as Wheelock believes (page119), to the fact that (to quotehim) "while the Vedic liturgy

uses language as a tool ofproper action, the Tantric ritualmakes action a subordinate oflanguage in producing properthought." However, this shouldnot lead us to believe that theVedic rites are purely action,without any correspondingideology or doctrine, as Staalseems (to me) somehow tobelieve. Wheelock's commentsin the last page of his essaystrike me as particularly

illuminating.

I should like to stress, however,that, although there certainlywas an evolution from theVedic to the Tantric attitudeconcerning the role of mantrasin ritual, as tools of action or asthought-producing or thought-sustaining devices,nevertheless, the admission ofthought or consciousness asidentical to the highest andsilent level of speech is an

ancient conception.

The quotation from theSatapatha * Brahmana* showsthat the idea of theinseparability of speech orword and thought appearedvery early. The notion ismentioned here by Coward inhis examination of the ideas ofBhartrhari*. For Bhartrhari*,however, cognition, idea(pratyaya), is inextricablyintertwined with word

(sabda*); that is, language, notexactly speech (vac*) andconsciousness: It is more aphilosophical notion than ametaphysical one, though it islinked to the metaphysical ideasand cosmological conceptionsthat are more specifically thoseto which mantric theory refers.

For mantras, the idea that thehighest level of speech is pureconsciousness is surely one ofthe reasons for the superiority,

in mantric practice, of silenceover actual speech, of theunsaid over the said. Thebrahman* also, in Vedic times,was the silent but necessarywitness of the ritual.5 Theideology of retention, which ispresent at all levels in so manydomains and particularly in thefield of ascetic practice, mayhave contributed, accessorily,to the supremacy of silence.This unity on the highest level

of vac* and consciousnessexplains why the Sivasutra*describe the mantra asconsciousness (cittam*mantrah*, SSu*. 2.1; cf. Piperpage 268). It also accounts forthe way in which the efficacy ofmantra is construed and how itworks from the Indian point ofview and explains why theworking of the mantra isconsidered inseparable from themind of the user. Indeed, when

one looks at how a mantra isput into practice by an adept,one may well ask oneselfwhether the real nature ofmantra is not consciousnessrather than speech, the answerperhaps being that mantra isspeech, but that speech, forIndia, is ultimatelyconsciousness.

Similarly, some importantfeatures of the mantric theoryof later times can be properly

explained only with referenceto the ancient Vedic conceptionof speech as efficient sacrificialspeech and, especially, assetting up those explanatoryidentifications and micro-macrocosmic cor-

relations, which the Brahmanas* first called nidana* orbandhu, and later upanisad*,an enunciation whose verbalcontent and internalorganization were moreimportant than its discursivemeaning. These mantras alsosometimes were made of, ormixed with, syllables withoutany apparent meaning. Theyalso could be uttered altering

the order of syllables or words,so that whatever empiricalmeaning they may have haddisappeared but withoutdiminishing their supposedefficacy in the least. All theseare features one finds in Tantricmantras. Hence, the value ofsuch essays as those of Staal orWheelock, which survey allthese ancient traits and showhow they survived into the laterperiods. For, we must not

forget that the old Vedic-Brahmanic rites never entirelydisappeared.6 More to thepoint, a number of "Vedic"mantras have either been keptor, more often probably, beenreincorporated into theagamas* or Tantras in thecourse of time by Tantricgroups, who included them intheir ritual. So much so, thatmost of what concerns Vedicmantras, their forms, their

structure, or the way in whichthey function, is not only ofhistorical interest but stillapposite down to the present.The Vedic tradition survives,thus, by coexisting with theTantric one, or combined withit, or by forming a sort ofsubstratum inasmuch asTantrism either inherited themore ancient ideas andpractices or adapted them tosuit its own purpose.

In brief, I would say that allthat India has said on mantras isto be explained or justifiedmuch less by what language orspeech actually is than by whatIndians, or some of them, haveconsidered it to beby theirnotions, that is, as to the natureof speech and language and theway these are supposed tofunction. I believe this shouldalways be borne in mind whenstudying mantras, to avoid

being enticed into apparentlybrilliant but ultimately arbitrarytheories.

To be sure, these Indiannotions, concerning as they dolinguistic or phonetic facts,form a part of linguistic theory.They often include precisephonetic observations andsometimes penetrating insightsinto the nature and working oflanguage. Though they may notbe what we should call

scientific, they can certainly beexplained in terms of real,factual, features of languageand their possible uses. Thisaspect of research into mantrahas been touched upon here byall those (for instance, Staal,Taber, Coward, Oberhammer,and Alper) who have taken upthe question of the nature (asspeech acts or otherwise) ofmantras and of their efficacy.Research in this field is

certainly to be pursued further,provided one does not confuseor mix two differentapproaches or yield to theseduction of Indianmetaphysical or mysticaltheoreticians and take theirspeculation for fact. Oneshould never lose sight, I feel,of the fact that mantras are aform of speech (or sound)within an Indian context; that is,that they are a part of a certain

type of practice, functioningwithin a definite ideology, thatof Hinduism, where mythicelements play an essential role,and within a particularanthropological (social,psychological) framework.Theirs is not a case of speech orlanguage in

general (if there is such athing), still less of language aswe conceive or use it. Mantrasfunction and have a "meaning"within a certain universe ofdiscourse, within an articulatedand systematized whole, thatimposed by a particular use oflanguage in the Indian context,outside of which they can nomore exist than a fish out ofwater, if only because of the

great difficulty of defining whata mantra is outside that context.Mantras are culturally definedand, therefore, necessarilywould differ very widely intheir aspects and functioningfrom one culture to another. Itwould be unwise, I fear, toneglect these facts when writingabout mantras and either try toremain simultaneously in twodifferent universes of discourseor allow the two to intermingle.

However, it is obvious thatwhile keeping to one of them,our own, one can contributeeffectively to an understandingof the other. This book is proofof the usefulness of pursuingthe study of Indian theories andpractices from the standpoint ofour own scientific approach tolanguage. We also (cf. Alperand Oberhammer) can look atmantras from our ownphilosophical standpoints,

though in such case the dangerof syncretism, or the risk ofbeing seduced by Indiantheories, is certainly greater. 7

Little has been done in thisbook to define mantras. Theword is not printed in italicslike other Sanskrit words; it is aword in common use.8 Weknow, or believe we know,what a mantra is. In fact, theterm is both impossible totranslate and very difficult to

define properly. One may referin this connection to Gonda'spioneering study (Gonda1963b), "The Indian Mantra,"which still makes interestingand useful reading and where anumber of definitions andexplanations of the term arebrought together. Also, morethan twenty years ago, I(Padoux 1963) put forward a1ongish definition9 that hasbeen criticized for not being

theoretical enough. Though Inever considered that attempt ata definition entirely satisfactory,I would probably use the samewords again now, with onlyminor alterations, because thatearlier attempt, being purelydescriptive, seems to me, allthings considered, bothserviceable and not toomisleading.

But should one try to definemantras at all? I am not sure.

Perhaps, we could just as wellavoid doing so (even if itentails sacrificing some pettheories) and remain contentwith what is done in thisvolume; i.e., with noting theuses and forms of mantras, thevarieties of mantric practicesand utterances (or some ofthem), as well as some of theIndian theories on the subject.Functional (and, thus, perhaps,unfashionable) as such an

approach may be, it still seemsto me to be the safest, andprobably the most useful one,giving an overall and generallyfair idea of what mantras maybe in theory as well as inpractice. The wide variety ofmantras and of their uses, fromVedic times to the present day,is one more reason forfollowing such a course. Even,if we do not draw a distinctionbetween Vedic and Tantric

mantras, as Renou did twenty-five years ago (1960a) and as Idid more recently (for whichStaal here takes me to task,pages 59-60), the great diversityof mantras in the

Hindu and Tantric fields,together with their differentforms and uses, are surelyenough to make any generaldefinition very difficult andprobably rather useless.

Another aspect of mantras ismore important and, in fact,much more than the question ofdefinition, has engaged theattention of the authors of these

essays, that of their meaning.Are mantras meaningful? Or,what sort of meaning havethey?

The difficulty here is a doubleone: First, what is one tounderstand by "meaning" in thepresent case? Second, how canwe find, on the question of the(problematic) meaning ofmantras, an answer that appliesequally well to all possiblecases? Can one apply the same

reasoning, on the one hand, to amantra that appears, when onereads or hears it, to have somemore or less obvious meaningand, on the other hand, to aseries of Vedic stobha or to aTantric mantra made up of asyllable, or group of syllables,forming neither a sentence nora word?

If, however, one refers to whatsome have written here and towhat I said earlier on the Indian

conception of speech, onenotices (this is underlined byStaal) that from the Vedicperiod onward mantras appearto possess characteristics thatdiffer from those of ordinarylanguage. Mantras do not abideentirely by its rules: sometimesas to their form, always as totheir use. Of course, sincemantras have something to dowith language in that they areuttered (or that they are,

theoretically, utterable), using amantra, like speaking, is"engaging in a rule-governedform of behavior" (to useSearle's words). But the rules ofmantric performance and useare of a very particular sort.The inner organization ofmantras and, especially, theirphonetic structure are moreimportant than their obviousmeaning, if any. They do notalways "say," or mean, what

they seem to be saying. Thiscomes, among other reasons,from the fact, as Finally andWheelock point out, that theyare part of a ritual performanceoutside of which they cannotreally be understood. The "rule-governed form of behavior" ofwhich they are a part is a ritualone, and they have a ''meaning"(by which I mean a use, ausefulness, or a role),significance, and value only

within that ritual activity.

Staal once said that, in India,"language is not something withwhich you name something, butin general something withwhich you do something"(1979c), a remark that probablyrefers to the active conceptionof language in Indiancivilization, where speech (vac*) is energy (sakti*), whichespecially is true where mantrasare concerned, their case being

precisely one where you "dothings with words" (insofar,naturally, as mantras arewords). In fact, there are caseswhere mantras may seem to"name" something, usually adeity. But, in such cases, theyare the deity's vacaka* (itssound-form and efficientessence, or svarupa*), so thatuttering the deity's mantra,which may be its name butmore often is not, is not naming

the deity but evoking orconjuring its power or, perhaps,as a means to open oneself to it(cf. Oberhammer, page 218); inany case, doing something.

Considering the phonetic aspectof Vedic mantras and the roleplayed in them by stobhasdevoid of all proper "meaning,"considering also the particularway in which they aresometimes recited and theimportance attached to theirexact pronunciation, Staalremarks (page 65) that thesemantras have a musicalcharacter and that they cannot

be understood unless thisquality is taken into account.This explains, he says, "whymantras cannot be explainedwholly or perhaps even partlyin terms of language." Thismusical or, more generally,phonetic or acoustic aspect ofmantras is undoubtedlyimportant and should beconsidered seriously (cf. infrapages 73-74).

This and all that has been said

in the ten essays that make upthe book underscores, I believe,two fundamental points: First,that mantras, whether in theform of sentences, words, orsounds, have a "meaning" (bywhich I mean that they help todo something), which very wellmay not appear in their verbalor phonetic sequence. Second,that their function is not one ofthe usual ones of language(namely, informative,

constative, communicative) butis a direct action, generally aritual one, or a psychological ormystical 10 one (see hereOberhammer's or Gupta's pointof view, to which I shall returnlater on). This being so, theefficacy mantras are supposedto have in all these cases, asconstitutive parts of a ritual orof a mental or spiritual practice,is not linked to a situation ofinterpersonal communication

nor, usually (but here one musttread carefully), of innerdeliberation or thought, all ofwhich are the "normal" uses oflanguage.11

Perhaps, one could say thatmantras have no meaning in theusual sense of the word, whichis not to say that they do notmake sense for those who usethem, but they do haveefficiency. They bring about aneffect or, to be more precise,

they are deemed, within theirown cultural context, to bringone about. This is the maindifference between a mantraand a word in a language, evenif you believe the meaning of aword to be what you do withit12 or to result from the usegiven it in human life.Evidently, the case with amantra is not that of a "normal"speech situation. Mantra has todo with humanly uttered sound,

it is even a linguisticphenomenon since it is utteredin speech or mentally. But, it isa linguistic phenomenon of avery particular, not to saypeculiar, sort.

A mantra has a use rather than ameaninga use in context. Findlyunderlined the fact that, inVedism, a mantra cannot beunderstood outside of its use inthe ritual (pages 15-16). Thisapplies equally, in later times,

to all mantric utterances in aritual context. As Wheelockwrites (page 99): "the languageof ritual is decidedlyextraordinary"; it does notcommunicate information, butserves "to create and allowparticipation in a known andrepeatable situation." This istrue. But, though the termsknown and repeatable are veryimportant here, I would addthat, as a ritual enunciation, a

mantra not only brings about aparticular situation but mayalso, at least in some cases,produce a change (sometimesan

irreversible one) in the mentalstate of the person who utters it(cf. Oberhammer). This changeresults from its utterance inassociation with theconcentration of the utterer'sattention upon it. Though theseeffects may respond to someinherent possibilities oflanguage, or rather of humanlyproduced sound, it is quiteforeign to the usual

communicative or informativeuses of language.

One might be tempted simply toconsider mantras as examplesof the magical use of language.But, the explanation by magicalone, though useful, seemsinadequate. First, because theuses of mantras are notrestricted to what maylegitimately be called magic,which, even in Tantrism, isonly a limited part of a vast

amount of practice andspeculation on the holy orsacred, of which magic is but aprofane or profanatoryhandling. Second, and evenmore important, because thedistinction between magic andreligion, always a difficult one,is practically impossible in thecase of Tantrism, where onecan seldom know where thedomain of the holy ends orwhat exactly is profane.

"Magical" acts performed withmantras, such as thesatkarmani * for instance, theaims of which are usuallypurely worldly, areundoubtedly within the realmof religion. (But, then, whatexactly is "religion" in India?Can we use this Western notionto describe such a system ofpractices and beliefs asHinduism or Buddhism?)

We should try to go deeper: If

the use of mantras is of amagical (or of some other)nature, we must ask ourselveswhat, in speech or languageitself, makes such a usepossible. For, obviously, thispeculiar mantric use of theconstituent elements of speechcan exist only insofar as, in thephonic substance of speech orin language, there are somefactors, some possibilities, thatpermit such use. Undoubtedly,

language fulfills more than onlythe purposes of ordinarycommunication, which is thetransfer of information from anemitter to a receiver, or that ofinner reflection orintrospection. Up to a point, itmay also be an end in itself; themedium can be the message. Insuch cases, the attention of theuser (and/or receiver) isfocussed on the words orsounds emitted or on the

syntactical aspect of themessage not on some referentof the phonic or verbalsequence. In the case ofmantras, from this focussing onthe verbal or phonic form, theattention of the user may passon to another plane, be it apostulated inner nature oressence of the mantra or somehigher, transcendent reality ofwhich the mantra is theexpression (vacaka*) and

which would be intuitednondiscursively by the userthrough an intense andconcentrated mental effort(dharana* or bhavana*).

Such use of the linguistic oracoustic resources of languageor of sounds may be calledmagical, especially if weconsider that sounds or wordsused in this way are deemed tohave an innate efficiency.However, this is nothing but a

particular application of thesymbolizing capacity oflanguage: that is, its capacity torepresent something other thanitself; to point towardssomething, to make one graspsomething; to turn

and focus the attention onsomething, whether an externalreferent or some inner meaningsupposed inherent or to beidentical with its phonicsubstance or to be some higherreality into which this substanceeventually is supposed todissolve.

Language, being a symbolicalsystem, can symbolize in

different ways, including theuse of sounds to whichconventional values areattributed and in which theefficient energy of speech, aswell as in words, is thought toreside. This is true generally,not only within the Indiantheory of speech. The totalnumber of possible sounds isgreatly in excess of thoseactually in use in any language.Such sounds have been used

always and everywhere.Anthropology andpsycholinguistics (not tomention personal experience)show us that among suchsounds none is entirely"innocent" or meaningless; notonly words or interjections butmere sounds emitted by manare felt to have meaning, anaura of meaning, or aconnotation, be this a productof nature or of culture. There

is, we know, a a pulsional basisof phonation. 13 Therefore, weconsider that mantras in someof their forms, the bijas*mostly, answer the deeplyingrained urge to emit soundsthat are both arbitrary (i.e., notpart of language or of ordinarylinguistic use) and not innocent(i.e., having a "meaning" orevoking something).14

In his essay, Staal underlinesthis primitive, archaic aspect of

mantras and refers to mentalpatients, to the babblingpresleep monologues of babies,and to glossolalia (pages 75-80). He is certainly right also inunderlining the fact that thisarchaic level of speech ispresent in all human beings:"man, he says, cannot becomean animal; he always is one."He quotes me, in thisconnection, as saying that thisarchaic level is "the source of

creation itself," which I wrotewhen attempting to set forth theKashmir Saiva* conception ofmantras, a conception one maytake as a metaphysical, mythicalexpression of the intuition thatsuch an archaic level exists.

In the Tantraloka*,Abhinavagupta mentionsanother form of this deep level.He describes the panting, the"ha-ha" sound, which he callskamatattva*, or the sitkara*,

the "sss" sound, uttered by awoman during coition or at themoment of orgasm. "Thisimperishable, spontaneousvibration appearinginvoluntarily in the throat of thebeloved one, is pure sound(dhvani) produced neither bymeditation nor by mentalconcentration. If one appliesone's mind to it wholly, onesuddenly becomes master of theuniverse" (TA* 3.147-48). In

this context, such a sound,since it issues spontaneouslyfrom the depths of the self,goes beyond the bounds ofordinary human existence. It isfelt as going back to the sourceof life, hence, the powersacquired by the yogin whoimmerses himself in it. True,such sounds as ha-ha or sit*are not exactly mantras, if onlybecause they do not have theformal, socially sanctioned

traits of mantras. But, since, forAbhinavagupta (followingSivasutra* 2.1) all speech on atranscendent plane is mantra(cf. Alper) we still have here

an instance of what a mantramay beor of what it may"mean"in the Kashmir Saiva *context. This nature and"meaning" is very near to thatgenerally ascribed to bijas* byWheelock as ''sonicmanifestations of basic cosmicpowers: they are the cosmicelements in essential form".

True, mantras also have

ordinary linguistic forms,notably, but not only, inVedism. Here, another use oflanguage may be mentioned,poetic language. In fact, incases where mantras appear topossess a "normal" linguisticform, they still do not"function" as ordinarylanguage. "Even if a Vedicmantra seems to be a verse",says Staal (page 60), "in itsritual use it is not treated like a

verse at all." Such mantras, aswe see in this book, were theproducts of the vision of Vedicpoets, of their "insight touchingupon the riddles of the world"(Findly, page 20): "The poeticword, says the Rgveda*(2.35.2), comes from the heartof the poet."

Poetry, in language, is what is,or may be, nearest to theineffable, that which bestattempts to express the

inexpressible, to bestowthrough words but somehowbeyond them the directawareness of physical andspiritual reality that gives manthe feeling that he oversteps hislimits. The mantra used in thecourse of a spiritual exercise, inits own way, can help thesadhaka* to obtain a similarsort of experience.

In poetry, as in mantras, theverbal sequence cannot be

altered; like mantras, poetryrests on contiguities. Moreover,a poem, like a mantra, cannotbe expressed in other words; itmeans what it says as it says itor else it ceases to be. Poetryand mantra both act on the userthrough and by their ownverbal and phonic form. If weadd that many Western poetssince the Romantics havetended to believe, rather likeVedic bards, that poetry may be

a path if not to eternal truths atleast to a reality that usuallyescapes us, it is clear that thereare analogies between poetryand mantra. Or ratherand this ismore important for usthatmantra, like poetry, legitimatelycalls upon the expressive andrevealing powers of language,powers that exist even if notused in current interpersonalcommunication. Naturally, wemust be careful not to carry the

analogy too far, if only becauseVedic poetry, when it is mantra,is used in a ritual context,unlike a poem, and because aTantric bijamantra* is not apoem nor is it psychologicallyfelt and used as one. Still, in allpoetic texts, a catalyzing poweris always at work, analogous inmany respects to that whichWheelock notes (page 108)when he says that, in Vedism asin Tantrism, the mantra is the

catalyst "that allows the sacredpotential of the ritual setting tobecome a reality."

But, whatever role we ascribeto the mantra as such, we mustnever forget that all spiritualand mystical experiencesobtained with the help ofmantras are experiences of thehuman mind. They are states ofconsciousness, for whichmantra or ritual are merelyinstrumental; different means

could bring about the sameresult. This is only to underlinethe fact that the mantric use ofthe phonetic material and thesymbolizing

powers of language, thoughpeculiar, are a perfectlylegitimate variant of the usesgenerally made of humanspeech and of the powersusually, if not always officially,attributed to it.

As regards the nature ofmantra, are we to see them asspeech acts (as Searleunderstands speech acts) or as

illocutionary acts? Staal andFindly take opposite stands onthe subject. I prefer not toadopt a definite position, if onlybecause the variety of mantricforms and uses makes itdifficult to bring them togetherunder one explanatory orclassifying principle.

However, I should like toremark in passing that theefficiency (if any) of mantras isnot something they actually

possess but somethingtraditionaly ascribed to them,which they are believed topossess. Mantras, as I havesaid, exist only within thistraditional context and surviveonly through this belief. Theso-called illocutionary power ofsome speech acts amounts tonothing other than this. Exceptin the subjective andpsychological fields (andperhaps that of aesthetics), the

alleged power of speech isnothing but that of the speaker,who has no other power thanthat bestowed upon him by hissocial group, which alsodecides the conditions in whichthis power may be used. Thisholds true for legalpronouncements as well as forthe formulas of everydayspeech, all of which have noother effects than thoseassigned to them by social

consent when they are used"felicitously," that is, at theproper time and in the propercircumstances, as they aresocially determined.

In much the same fashion,mantras, the uses of which arestrictly codified, have, mutatismutandis, no other efficacythan that ascribed to them bythe Hindu, Jain, or Buddhisttraditions to which they belongand within the ritual prescribed

by these traditions. Or, at leastin yoga, bhavana *, and thelike, they are effective elementsof a practice, the rules of whichare traditionally established andbelieved to be efficacious.Should mantras be representedas part of a language-game, Iwould point out that in no gameare the rules not fixed by thegroup among whom it isplayed. We therefore mayascribe the so-called efficacy of

mantras to culturethat is, to theideological aspect ofsocietyinasmuch as itconditions individual beliefsand mental attitudes.

That being so, the bestapproach to this cultural andpsychological phenomenon isprobably to make use of theconcept of symbolic efficacy.15This concept, in my opinion,probably best explains how thevaried ensemble of mantric

conducts work with arecognized "efficacy" within themythical Brahmanic-Hindu (orBuddhist) world. Mantras havean efficacy because the peopleconcerned, the users of mantrasand the rest of their group,believe them to be efficacious:Symbolic efficacy has asubjective social basis. It alsohas an objective cultural one,since among these symbolicactions, which are fixed by

tradition and are rule-governed,some are more objectivelyeffective than others. Such anexplanation has the advantageof applying equally well topoetic metaphors and to ritualor "magical" practices, toformulas suited to particu-

lar social circumstances, to anypsychical or physiologicaleffects that may appear, and tothose practices of meditation ormental creation (bhavana *) bywhich the reality "expressed" bya mantra may be realizedmystically. A realization madepossible, within this symbolicframework, because thepractitioner brings the mantrainto play by concentrating upon

it all the forces of his psyche.This psychological, orconsciousness, aspect ofmantras, I feel, is fundamental.Hence, also, the usefulness ofthe notion of intentionality,which borders upon that ofbelief in the understanding ofhow they are approached by thepractitioner.

The intention or wish toexpress (vivaks*) is for theMimamsa* (Taber, page 159) a

feature of all language. But,whatever the Mimamsaka's*views, we may take the notionof intentionality of speech tomean that any utterance, whenone speaks, "wants to say" (as itis put in colloquial French)16something: expresses anintention to communicate, tosignify, or at least to expresssomething, an intention that(within, of course, the limits ofconventional behavior, i.e., of

social exchange) often "means"(wishes or is made to convey)more than is actually said;hence, a greater richness andlarger efficacy of the message.This intentionality I believe tobe a fact one can admit withoutnecessarily belonging to thephenomenological school ofphilosophy.

Should we not ascribe similarintention to mantric utterances?Staal thinks not (page 66 ff.).

He may be right where Vedicritual is concerned.17 But, Icannot bring myself to followhim where later, and especiallyTantric, ritual is concerned.First, I cannot see how a mantracan be used without somereason. It is not uttered as aninvoluntary noise but for apurpose: An intention surely isalways there. More specifically,Tantric texts on Mantrasastra*always assign a use (viniyoga),

and thus a purpose, tomantras.18 Clearly, such anintentionality is not that of themantra but of its user. It can beattributed only metaphoricallyto the mantra itself. Anambiguity as to where theintentionality lies, however, iskept up in such systems as theSaiva* nondualist ones, whichtreat consciousness and mantraas identical at their highestlevels: This appears dearly in

Ksemaraja's* Vimarsini* onSivasutra* 2.1 (cf. Alper page262).

For Oberhammer (page 212),the mantra "by means of thewish to contemplate, orexperience ... effects in themeditating subject ... anintentionality that opens himradically for encountering thereality of Siva*." The mantrathus appears as strengtheningthis intentionality, as allowing it

to become actual inasmuch asthe mantra, according toOberhammer, is a means forthe contemplation of thegodhead. To quote him again,this is done by the mantra"because in contemplation onlythe mantra is a reality which isdearly delimited and set in acertain point of time and istherefore capable of makingthis mythic mediation oftranscendence which is

immanent to it, an event."

This formulation of theproblem would be worthexploring further. It

refers to a particular approachto religious experience thatowes much to the philosophyof Husserl or Heidegger. It isvery illuminating.Oberhammer's remarks, whichrefer to the Pasupatas *, are allthe more interesting as the sameapproach also, I feel, could beusefully adopted in relation tothe conception of the Saiva*nondualists, such as the Kula,

Pratyabhijna*, or Krama,concerning the nature, uses,and soteric efficacy of mantras.

But, interesting, fundamentaleven, as the redemptive aspectof mantras may be, we shouldnot forget that only a minorityof mantras are redemptive.Mantras first and foremost arewords and sounds of power forritual use and only secondarily,if centrally, soteric devices.

Perhaps I went too far earlierwhen I juxtaposed mantra andpoetry (pages 305-306). Amantra is a word of power,considered self-efficacious andthus something very differentfrom poetry, whateverconception one may have of thelatter.

With the possible exception ofat least some of the Vedicmantras, which originally werepoetic texts later adapted for

ritual purposes, mantras andpoetry are things apart; theironly common feature is theyare both forms of speech (oruses of phonetic material oflanguage), which are regardedas more efficient and powerfulthan ordinary forms of speechor language.

Whatever its merits and in spiteof Rimbaud and a few others,poetry cannot do much to freemankind from the snares of

everyday life. At most, it mayavoid involving him deeper insuch toils, unlike ordinarylanguage (especially that ofcommerce, politics orideology). Could mantra domore and set man free fromdeception? Certain observersbelieve it does, at leastsometimes (cf. Alper page 263).Hence, the idea that there mightbe mantras for the West, whichwould help us to free ourselves

not only from Western but alsofrom human bondage.

Such mantras are certainlyconceivable, and some evenactually exist. Should we wish,however, to import them to theWest for our own use, weshould never forget thefollowing two fundamentalpoints: (1) Mantras are efficientforms of speech within aparticular tradition, wherespeech is conceived of within a

particular mythico-religiousframework. If we pluck themfrom this cultural milieu, whichis their nourishing soil, is "theluminous bud of mantra," as A.Avalon used to say, likely tosurvive? One may well doubt it.(2) We must remember thatmantras, even in their higher,supposedly redemptive forms,are always part of a precise andcompulsory ritual context,outside which they are useless

and powerless. A mantra maybe a liberating word but only inaccordance to precise andbinding rules.

I stress these two pointsbecause of the parallel Iallowed myself earlier betweenmantra and poetry; because ofthe notions sometimesentertained about poetry and its"power"; because, also, of theconception of mantras as thedeepest or highest level of

speech, expressive of the coreof reality, among other things,near to the source of languageas

well as to that of our energiesor drives. Mantra could then beconsidered as spontaneousspeech. But, in point of fact, inthe Indian context, mantra isnever free or liberated speech.It has nothing in common, say,with surrealist poetry. Neither ismantra babbling or glossolalia,even if it may be comparedwith them, with reference to theorigins of language, and of the

mantric form of speech (Staalpages 75 ff.). Nor is a mantra aspontaneous cry of joy, ecstasy,or trance, whose utterance maymake the ego may feelliberated. Mantra is not nature;it is culture. That the nature ofmantra as a part of ritual (i.e.,socially organized behavior) isabundantly underscored in thisbook.

Though Sanskrit texts describemantras as sahaja, this is not to

say that they are spontaneousutterances but that they areforms of vac *, the divineword, innate in man, born ofitself without external help, theword that reveals the highlyorganized, sophisticated formof poetic utterance, the Veda.All the letters of the Sanskritalphabet, supposedly born inthe godhead, may be regardedas mantras. Born of themselvesas spontaneous movements of

the divine energy, they appear"freely" but according to thetraditional and very rationalorder of the var-nasamamnaya*. Even when amantra is regarded as a form ofthe deeper inner level ofspeech, which one can perceivein oneself, it is nevertheless aword transmitted and organizedby tradition not something onefreely discovers byintrospection or otherwise. No

one finds out or coins a mantra;he receives it ritually from amaster who has it fromtradition. (Not to mention, ofcourse, the larger mass ofmantras used in rituals, whichare routinely employed.)Admittedly, there are such casesas those of the sitkara*,previously mentioned, or of thehamsa, or the ajapajapa*, butthese also are declared bytradition to be mantras and they

are used according to ritual andmagisterial prescriptions. These"natural" sounds are taken up,organized, codified by culture,and never left at the disposal ofpeople to use them as theywish.

Such a use of mantras, takenfrom their Indian context andtransferred to our own, isprecisely what some Westernersnow propose. As I said earlier,I do not believe this to be

entirely legitimate, since wecannot (or only veryexceptionally) really adopt allthe Indian cultural context inwhich they are groundedtogether with the mantras. Formantras to work within ourown civilization, we must usethem within a philosophicalframework of our own,drawing to a greater or lesserextent on the fund of Westernreligious thought and beliefs

and on our traditional notionsconcerning the powers ofspeech, which differ fromIndian ones. This framework,even though adapted to themantras and probably"orientalized" to some degree,would still inevitably transformour mantras into somethingother than the Indian ones.They might still prove useful,efficacious as means to mentalconcentration, spiritual effort,

or mystical life or as forms ofprayer. Like their Indianmodels, they would beendowed with the evocativepower of sounds or words andwould exert the influence thatsuch sounds or sound patternsun-

doubtedly have on the bodyand on states of consciousness.But, would they still be mantrasproperly so-called? Wouldthere even be any point incalling them mantras?

If we try to look at mantras in aperspective wider than theIndian one, as among theparticular uses of language orof humanly produced sounds,

we also realize that they belongto the vast universal mass ofpractices and notions thatcontains not only prayers andreligious utterances but alsospells and incantations; all the"words of power," all theabracadabras reflecting theceaseless, irrational wish to actefficaciously through words orsounds; all cases where,through words or sound, wishor will becomes action or

produces effects.

Indians have speculated subtlyon this archetypal theme andeventually worked it out in theirtheories on vac *, on theefficacy of mantras(mantravirya*), and on theconsciousness aspect ofmantras, aspects very carefullystudied here by Alper. Brilliantand ingenious as these theoriesmay be, they nevertheless restbasically, I believe, on the

bedrock of the ancient belief inthe intrinsically "magical"efficacy of speech, a belief aswidespread as it is strong.

With respect to this belief, Ishould probably refer againhere to the question ofsupernatural powers and of the"magical" effects of mantras.Mantras, in India, are dearlyused much more often to gainsuch powers or to produce sucheffects than for redemptive

purposes. But especiallyinteresting is the fact thatmantras may very well have(and are usually held to do soby most Tantric texts on thesubject) both redemptive andmagical effects. With mantras,we are at once in the world ofspiritual experience and in thatof supernatural powers or ofmagical action, if we prefer tocall it that. Hence, I presume,the appeal of mantras to so

many people: A mantra, on themagical plane, gives them whatthey wish for. On the spiritual(or redemptive) plane, it is aneffective tool for concentrationand, thus, can bring about thespiritual state a person cravesand which, once obtained,either confers supernaturalpowers upon him or brings himto regard them as despicable,the satisfaction is the same ineither case. The problem of the

link between mantras and thesearch for (or obtaining of)supernatural powers isinteresting and would be worthinvestigating systematicallyfrom the Indological point ofview,19 as well as that ofanthropology or psychology.(Not to mention that ofpsychoanalysis, which wouldprobably detect in those whobelieve they have such powersthe survival of infantile dreams

of omnipotence or traits usuallyconsidered typical of mania.)

Many more aspects of mantrasor problems relating to them,even if already studied, wouldstill be worth further study. Wemay note, for instance, thatdespite their variety, the essaysin this book examine onlycertain types of mantras andmantric practices. According tothe Hindu tradition, there areseventy million mantras, though

the real figure is

certainly much smaller. Butnobody, I think, has everattempted to assess or guesstheir actual number. The task isprobably not worth attempting.But it would be very useful,using modern methods, togather together a large numberof mantras, with information ontheir uses. However repetitivethe mantras themselves andhowever seemingly stereotyped

the ways in which they areused, we are still far fromknowing most of them. Inaddition to Vedic uses (onwhich not all has been said herefor lack of space), the essays inthis book are more concernedwith the religious and, morespecifically, the soteric uses ofmantras, whereas in actual fact(as I pointed out before) themajority of mantras used inHinduism are employed for

purely ritual purposes, whetherduring pujas * or during all theritual acts in the daily life of aHindu. In all such cases, theaction is either accompanied bymantras or consists merely oftheir utterance. The user feelshe is uttering words or soundsthat are efficient, though theireffect may not be visible, in thesense that, uttered together withthe proper rites, theyaccomplish what they say or

what they are supposed toeffect: They drive awaydemons, transform water intonectar, place spiritual entities onthe body or on an object, etc.20In all such cases, is what isbeing done (i.e., the mantraplus the act) believed to act exopere operato, by some sort ofdirect effect, as soon as theprescribed conditions areobserved? Or, does the efficacyof the rite depend also on the

intellectual attitude or spiritualeffort of the actor? The answeris probably twofold: (1) Thespiritual factor is a necessity inmantra-sadhana* and in allspiritual practices aimed atliberation or wordly results(mukti or bhukti). But, (2) inthe case of all obligatory rites,or those of current practices,that is, in the vast majority ofcases, the only necessarycondition for the mantra to be

"efficacious" is to use it whilekeeping strictly to theprescribed rules.

Concerning the possible effectsof mantras upon their users, wemay also note, that in all dailyacts except those of worship(bath, meals, work, etc.),mantras also have (or at anyrate appear to us to have) apsychological function inaddition to their ritual role,which is to sanctify, so to

speak, the action being done.While the person acts and uttersthe mantras, they focusattention on the godhead or onthe cosmic or religious meaningor bearing of the action. Thisaspect of the practical functionof mantras must not beoverlooked. Focussing attentionis especially important in oneact, which plays an essentialpart in the daily life of Hindusand of Buddhists, although not

dealt with in the essays in thebook, I believe: japa, themuttering of a mantra. Is japa aritual act? (Japa, performedwith a rosary, aksamala*, ishighly ritualized, see, forinstance, Chapter 14 ofJayakhyasamhita*.) Is it an actof spiritual quest or a prayer?(And, then, does it act by mererepetition or through thespiritual effort of thedevotee?)21

The essays in the bookconcentrate mainly on mantrasfor redemptive uses but, exceptin the case of the Pancaratra*studied by Sanjukta Gupta, theyhardly mention the way inwhich mantras actually are put

into practice. This is a field stillopen for research. There is, forinstance, nothing on theSaiva/Stkta * sects or schoolscomparable to Beyer's (1973)The Cult of Tara. This study,together with those of AlexWayman on Tantric Buddhism,to mention only two, give factsand interpretations of theutmost interest onmantrayana.* Consider the

variety of Saiva* or Sakta*schools or sects in NorthernIndia; their geographicalextension, which includesnotably Nepal; the large numberof agamas* and tantras, manystill unpublished; and thedifferent traditions, forinstance, Kula with itssubvarieties Tripura*,Kubjika*, etc., or Krama and soon. We can see that there is avast field still far from

catalogued, where mantricpractices are to be foundeverywhere, all with differentmantric patterns. This wholearea deserves to be carefullysurveyed and studied.22

There is scope for research inVaisnavism*, too, even aftersuch important studies as thoseof S. Gupta and E. C. Dimock.Such works as the Jayakhya*and the Sesa-Samhita*, to nameonly two well-known texts

available in print, would beworth systematic study from themantric point of view. Ofcourse, so would the actualpractices of the Vaisnavas*who use such texts: There isscope here for field work. Thesame sort of study also couldbe carried out on a wealth ofother texts: Puranas* forinstance, or Upanisads*, etc. Ifwe add that Sanskrit texts areonly a part of what has been

written on or about mantras(and there are oral traditions),the possible field of researchemerges as very wide.Admittedly, Tantric literature isvery repetitive, and mantras andmantric practices are verystereotyped. The variety,therefore, is far from infinite.Still, it is certainly very largeand well worth studying.

In addition to this study ofvarious texts, as complete and

systematic an inventory aspossible should be drawn up ofmantras and mantric practices.Alphabetic lists of mantras areneeded, together with theirtextual references, thecircumstances of their use, andtheir meanings. An inventory ofrites where mantras occur, withall that serves to put them inactual use (nyasa*, mudra*,yantra, mandala*, dhyana*,japa, etc.) as well as such yogic

or spiritual practices assmarana*, uccara*, bhavana*,etc. also should be made,together with a study of variantpractices, both Hindu andBuddhist.23 These, to useAlper's words, are "livedsituations where mantras areused," which ought to bestudied and classified.

Such an inventory of mantrasand mantric practices wasplanned by the Equipe de

Recherche N°249 "'Hindouisme:textes, doctrines, prati-ques" ofthe French Centre National dela Recherche Scientifique,which was set up in 1982. It hasmade little progress however,through lack of funds andfacilities. A card-index such asthe one the Equipe deRecherche is trying to make isnot adequate: Informationshould be gathered on the scaleof an international program and

should be stored in computers.Another project of the sameEquipe, a glossary of technicalterms of Mantrasastra*, has alsomade very little progress.

There is also the history ofMantrasastra*. As always inIndia, the difficulty is the lackof precise historical data. Someproblems, however,

may be tackled at leasttentatively. That of the origin,Vedic or otherwise, ofMantrasastra * is probablyimpossible to solve; so, too, isthat of its geographic origin.But origins do not matter verymuch. More interesting, andperhaps less difficult to solve,is the problem of the transitionfrom Vedic mantras to HinduMantrasastra*. To quote Staal

(page 65) "The curious fact thatmonosyllabic mantras of thestobha type re-emerged inTantrism after apparently lyingdormant for more than amillenium." I am not sure theyactually lay dormant so long.But, the question as to how andwhy Tantric Mantrasastra*appeared and developed iscertainly an interesting, and stillunsolved, one.

The relationship between Hindu

Mantrasastra* and BuddhistMantrayana*, the history andmutual relationships of thedifferent schools and traditionswithin Hindu Mantrasastra*, orthose of the Buddhist-Tantricsects, with their differentmantras; local mantric traditions(in Kashmir-Nepal, or Bengal-Assam, or also Central andEastern India, or Kerala, notforgetting "Greater India") areall fields that are certainly not

unknown but in which furtherstudy from a "mantric" point ofview would undoubtedly berewarding.

All these are fields forIndological research, butmantras should also be tackledfrom another angle than thetextual or historical. They arealso to be viewed as a livingpractice, in India and, perhaps,elsewhere. Other methods thanthose, mainly historical and

philological, of Indo1ogytherefore should be used aswell.

Indeed, such differentapproaches are not entirelyforeign to indologists*. Theproblem linguists are set bymantras as particular forms ofspeech or as particular uses ofthe phonetic resources ofspeech have been taken up inthe essays in this book (Staal,Wheelock, Alper, etc.). But,

precisely because they show aparticular use of Sanskrit or ofhumanly produced sound,mantras as such should bestudied systematically from thepoint of view of theirphonology, sound pattern(repetitions, alliterations, etc.),and syntax when they consist ofsentences. A semantic studyperhaps also may be carried outfrom a properly linguistic, notreligious or philosophical, point

of view.

A psycholinguistic approach tomantras also would beinteresting. Sounds as well aswords have intrinsicexpressiveness, emotive orintuitive associations,meanings, or connotations; andthese certainly exist in the caseof mantras. This aspect shouldbe studied in relation to theusers of mantras, too. We knowthere is a phonetical symbolism,

certain sounds elicit certainrepresentations or responses.Even though the meanings andconnotations of mantras arefixed by tradition, theyundoubtedly have emotiveassociations or connotations,too, and these are probablymade use of (albeitunconsciously) by the traditionsand contribute to their religiousor spiritual efficacy. There is nodoubt that the traditionally

admitted connotations orsymbolic values of mantras areconventional not natural. Forinstance, the associations orfeelings evoked in a Hindu byOM* do seem to be entirelyfixed, organized, and

oriented by the Hindu tradition,by culture. But there are stillprobably areas and a number ofcases, where psycholinguisticresearch should proverewarding.

Psychological orpsychophysiological researchmethods could be applied tomantrayoga, where mantras,visualized as being in the subtle

body whose image issuperimposed by bhavana * onthat of the physical body, areusually considered as actingand moving together withkundalini*, which itself is avery particular internalizedmental construction.24 Suchmental and physical practicesresult in a particular image ofthe body, fashioned with thehelp of mantras, which abide init and animate it. One could try

to find, in this respect, hownyasas* act on thepsychological plane. How, wemay ask ourselves, does ayogin experience his body as he"lives" it25 when it is entirelyimbued with mantras,supposedly divinized orcosmicized by them? Theexperience is sure to be of anunusual sort, which it would beinteresting to know.

Mantras are also used in

traditional medicine: Zysktackles the subject here. But, inaddition to their "magical" usein the preparation of drugs or inthe cure of bodily ills, whichare of interest mainly forethnology, mantras have animportant role also in thetreatment of mental illnesses bymystics, shamans, ortranditional doctors, a field forpsychiatry andpsychoanalysis.26

Staal (page 65) draws ourattention to the fact that onecannot understand mantraswithout refering to theirmusical aspect. Mantras,indeed, should be studied fromthe point of view of acoustics,which implies recordings ofmantras and the study of suchrecordings. To this musical,rhythmic, prosodical, approachshould be added a physiologicalone, which would be linked to

the psycholinguistic study Imentioned earlier. Sincemantras, among other things,are sounds emitted by humanbeings, they must certainly havesome effect or influence onbody and mind or, moreexactly, on the psychosomatichuman structure, a structurealways considered in India as awhole. In kundalini* yoga,phonemes and mantras areassociated with the centers

(cakra) of the subtle body.Such connections betweensounds and cakras lookcontrived and arbitrary, but weshould not reject such notionsimmediately as absurd. Even ifinaccurate and artificial in theirtraditional form, they may stillhold a measure of truth. Man,indeed, lives in language andsound. He never ceases to emitand receive words and sounds.These act on his body as well as

on his mind. Neurophysiologyshows this very dearly.Scientific investigation hasshown that certain sounds (aswell as the complete absence ofsound) have effects, and theeffect produced when thesound is emitted or receivedseems to be related to certainparts of the body. Some soundsmay cause the body to vibrate,may have physiological effects,or may help to awaken certain

states of consciousness. (Somepsycho-acousticians, forinstance, consider shrill soundsto have an energizing effect.)Traditional music, religiouschants, aim precisely at suchresults: spiritual resultsforemost, but also

probably other effects,therapeutic ones especially. Allthis is important. It wouldtherefore be interesting to studysome mantras scientifically,together with the way in whichthey are uttered, repeated, orchanted, to find out if they haveany real effect on the user and,if so, which ones and how.

There is also the interesting

question of the relation betweenmantric practices and theexperience of time. A mantraused for redemptive ends is ameans to free oneself fromtime, to experience the ''GreatTime" (mahakala *), which isthe matrix of all temporality.Such, for instance, is one aspectof the "seed of the Heart," themantra SAUH*, in northernSaiva* schools. Mantricpractices of this sort in Tantric

nondualist Saivism* of theKashmiri brand or in theBuddhist Kaacakra* ("Wheel ofTime") school would be worthinvestigating. More generally,we may ask ourselves whetherthe alteration of thegrammatical order of words orof the normal sequence ofsyllables in a mantra,sometimes resorted to in Vedicand in Tantric practice, is notused (among other reasons) as

a means by which to destroytime, since a basic characteristicof the syntagmatic order isprecisely its being produced inthe process of time: Speech isan aspect of the flow of time, away to experience it or to livein it. By interfering with thenormal sequence of speech,one, thus, also would interfere,symbolically at least, with theusual experience of time.27

Mantras rank among the

courses of action men havedevised to satisfy a deep urgewithin them to overstep theirlimits, to be all powerful and allknowing, a dream ofomnipotence. There also is thewish to be free from fear, to fillthe void men feel surroundsthem. Hence, the magicalwords. Hence, mantras. Hence,the word (words, rather, forthey are many) of life and ofsalvation. Such longings are so

ancient and so widespread as tobe respectable. The widevariety of conducts devised tosatisfy them make a fascinatingstudy. The force of the libidoinvested in such conduct bringsabout physiological effects aswell as particular states ofconsciousness. All this deservesthe most careful studyand avery rewarding one it is sure tobe. While carrying it out,however, we must carefully

avoid wishful thinking. Wemust make sure not to keep"confusing mantras with names,sounds with things, and silencewith wisdom," like the peoplein a "myth" told by Staal.28 But,we must certainly go onstudying, mantras as well asother things, until the vastriddle of the world is solvedif itcan ever be.

Notes

1. In this respect, referencemight be made to a number ofmodern spiritual masters: to SriAurobindo, for instance; to theTranscendental Meditationgroup; to the Radhasoamis,with their sumiran practice; tothe theories of SwamiPratyagatmananda* Saraswatiin his Japasutram*; etc.

2. Or, in traditions that havereceived and adopted elementsof the Indian tradition, such as

some schools of Chinese andJapanese Buddhism.

3. In French, one would say laparole, written with or withouta capital p, a term thatunderlines both the spoken,oral, aspect of speech and itspossible metaphysical values asthe Word. I believe howeverthat vac * should not betranslated "discourse" sincethough vac* may be speech, itsessential nature isnondiscursive. In this, I

admittedly differ from Alper, atleast in matters of translation.

4. Written mantras andspeculations on how to tracethem are to be found inChinese and Japanesemantrayana*, with the use of ascript derived from brahmi*,called siddham. See van Gulik1956.

5. See Renou 1949a, 11-18; orH. W. Bodewitz, "The Fourth

Priest (the Brahman*) in VedicRitual," Selected Studies in theIndian Religious, Essays to D.J. Hoens (Leiden: Brill, 1983),33-68.

6. They survive in the sphere ofdomestic rites and among a fewsmall very orthodox Brahmingroups. An instance is theagnicayana, the Vedic rite ofthe fire-altar, of theNambudiris, described by Staal.But, most of the public (as

opposed to domestic) Vedicrites performed nowadays inIndia are quasi-archeologicalconstructions, trying ratherartificially to revive a thing ofthe past.

7. I believe, for instance, thatone simply cannot discuss thetruth or falsity of mantricutterances, if only because wecannot know "whether or notSiva 'is really here'" (Alper page277).

8. The Oxford ConciseDictionary, for instance, doesnot print mantra in italics. Itdefines it as "Vedic hymn;Hindu or Buddhist devotionalincantation."

9. The definition given was

Une formule, ou un son,qui est chargéd'efficacité générale ouparticulière et quireprésenteou plusexactement qui estla

divinité ou un certainaspect de la divinité,c'est-à-dire qui est laforme sonore etefficacement utilisablepar l'adepte de tel ou telaspect de l'énergie etqui se situe par lô mêmeà un certain niveau de laconscience. (p. 297)

10. Here, I use mystical in arather vague fashion for theuses of mantras in all forms ofintuitive realization of some

postulated transcendent entityor reality.

11. One might quote, here,Robert A. Paul: "Thesesyllables are without discursivemeaning, but they must be sosince they are generativeelements, not surfacestructures: a seed does notdisplay the likeness of a stalk ofwheat, nor does a drop ofsemen resemble a man." (TheTibetan Symbolic World:

Psycho-analytic Explorations.Chicago: University of ChicagoPress, 1982, p. 30.)

12. One can, naturally, reducethe meaning of a word to "itsuse in the language" (cf. Alperpage 253 quoting Wittgenstein).Any abracadabra, in fact, canbe used so as to have some usein some language. Would that,however, still be language andmeaning, in the usual sense?But, this touches upon the

problem of the magical uses oflanguage.

13. See Istvan Fónasy, La ViveVoix (Paris: Payot, 1983), on"les bases pulsionelles de laphonation."

14. This is a point to be kept inmind when saying (withreference to bijas * and thelike) that mantras make sense:they certainly doto those whouse them. But so do theirutterances or babblings, to

mental patients and babies.

15. See Claude Lévi-Strauss,Anthropologie Structurale, vol.I (Paris: Plon, 1958).

16. The colloquial French forWhat does this mean? isQu'est-ce que cela veut dire?which, literally translated, isWhat does this want to say?

17. Staal, in a seminar on ritualheld in Paris/Nanterre in May1984, gave a fascinating

description of the Vedic ritualas "a cathedral of sounds andactions" constructed accordingto preestablished rules, whereeverything happens asprescribed, outside of anypersonal intention on the partof the performers, who actsimply because it is prescribedthat they should. This does notseem to me to apply to Pauranicor Tantric ritual, which is to beperformed with more than a

general intention (sankalpa*).It is to be done with a will, withfaith and devotion (bhakti), andtherefore the mental attitude,the intention and expectation,of the performer is offundamental importance.

18. When a text prescribes theuse of a mantra to somepurpose, it always gives thersi* (the name of the sage whohas first "seen" the mantra), themeter (chandas), the devata*

"expressed," the phonic seed(bija*) that is the quintessentialform of the mantra, sometimesalso the sakti*, kilaka*, etc.,and finally, always, the use(viniyoga) of the mantra inquestion.

19. See Goudriaan (1978),where the satkarmani* (the sixmagical acts) are studied,especially. On the more generalproblem of powers (siddhi) inHinduism, see Pensa (1969).

20. The rule that one cannotseparate mantra from ritual isexpressed, for instance, in theSaivagamaparibhasmanjari*(60): kriyasariram* ityuktam*mantram* jivam* iti smrtam*(The [ritual] action is said to bethe body; the mantra is thesoul). Or, mantrahina* kriya*nahi (There is, indeed, no[ritual] action without mantra).

21. All these aspects are there in

varying degrees. I study themin a third installment of my"Contributions à l'étude dumantrasatra*" for aforthcoming issue of theBulletin of the École Françaised'Extréme-Orient. See also mypaper "Un rituel hindou durosaire: Jayakhyasamhita*,Chapter 14," to be published inthe Journal Asiatique 275, no.1 (1987).

22. The edition and translation

of the Satsahasrasarmhita* byJ. S. Schoterman (1982) is avery useful contribution to thisfield. I also should mentionhere the research presentlybeing carried out by T.Goudriaan, in Utrecht, on theKubjikamata* and on theNihsvasasarasamhita*. There isalso my own work on theYoginihrdaya*, withAmrtananda's* Dipika*, whichwas recently published. See A.

Padoux, ed., Mantras etdiagrammes rituels dansl'hindouisme (Paris: Editionsdu

CNRS, 1986). Among thepapers is one by T. Goudriaanon "Kubjika's * Samayamantraand Its Manipulation in theKubjikamata*."

23. A study of one particularpractice is provided by S.Schoterman (1982), in theappendix of his edition of theSatsahasrasamhita* on thediagrams, called prastara* or

gahvara, used for theuddhara* of mantras.

24. On such mantrayogapractices with kundalini*, seefor instance my paper "Un japatantrique: Yoginihrdaya*,3.171-190" in Tantric andTaoist Studies in Honor of R.A. Stein (Bruxelles, 1981).

25. I refer here to whatpsychoanalysts of theDaseinsanalyse school, notably

Ludwig Binswanger, call Leib,as opposed to Körper. Körperis the physical body; whereasthe Leib (corps vécu, inFrench) is the body oneexperiences or feelspsychologically. The limits ofsuch Leib do not necessarilycoincide with those of thephysical body.

26. The subject is studied inSudhir Kakar (1982). See also apaper read by A. Rosu during

the panel on "Mantras etdiagrammes rituels dansl'hindouisme," Paris, June 1984,on "Mantra et Yantra dans lamédecine et l'alchimieindiennes," now published inthe Journal Asiatique (1986);203-268.

27. Years ago, Mircea Eliadeunderlined the role abnormaluse of language(sandhabhasa*, etc.) inTantrism may play in

introducing the adept to theawareness of a differentontological plane of existence.

28. As an epilogue to his(1975a) study.

Notes On The ContributorsHarvey P. Alper was associateprofessor of religious studies,Southern Methodist University,where he taught since 1974. In1976 he received the degree ofPh.D. from the University ofPennsylvania in South Asianstudies. His professionalinterests ranged from the

history of religion, with specialattention to the religioustraditions of South Asia, toreligion and culture, withspecial attention to the spatialarts and to film. He served aseditor of the series on the SaivaTraditions of Kashmir for theState University of New YorkPress and as coeditor of TheEncyclopedia of IndianPhilosophy. He contributedseveral articles to professional

journals and collections.Professor Alper died suddenlyon April 4, 1987, aftercompleting the editorial workon the present volume.

Harold Coward is director ofthe Calgary Institute for theHumanities and professor ofreligious studies at theUniversity of Calgary. Hereceived his Ph.D. fromMcMaster University and hasbeen a research scholar at the

Center for Advanced Study inTheoretical Psychology,University of Alberta, and theCenter for Advanced Study inIndian Philosophy, BanarasHindu University, India. He isthe author of fifteen books aswell as numerous articles andchapters.

Ellison Banks Finally isassociate professor of religionand Asian studies at TrinityCollege in Hartford,

Connecticut, and director of theTrinity Hunger Action ProjectFellowship (THAPF). Shereceived her Ph.D. from YaleUniversity in 1978. Prior tojoining the faculty at TrinityCollege, Dr. Findly taught atMr. Holyoke College andserved as visiting curator ofIndian miniature painting at theWorcester Art Museum. Shehas published widely on Vedicreligion, Indian miniature

painting (From the Courts ofIndia, 1981), and Mughalcultural and religious life. Sheis the author of Nur * Jahan*:Empress of Mughal India(1611-1627) (forthcoming).

Sanjukta Gupta was the seniorlecturer at the Institute ofOriental Languages andCultures of Utrecht(Netherlands) University fortwenty years, until her

retirement in 1986. She nowlives in Oxford, England.Before that, she taught Sanskritand Indian philosophy atJadavpur University (Calcutta).She received her Ph.D. inIndian philosophy at VisvaBharati University(Santiniketan), and a D.Lett.from Jan Gonda at UtrechtUniversity. Her books includeStudies in the Philosophy of

Madhusudana * Sarasvati*Laksmi* Tantra, APancaratra* Text, Translationwith Introduction and Notes,Hindu Tantrism (with Hoensand Goudriaan), and A Surveyof Hindu Tantric and Sakta*Literature (with Goudriaan).

Gerhard Oberhammer is headof the department of Indologyat the University of Vienna. Hereceived his Ph.D. from theUniversity of Innsbruck, after

studying philosophy andcomparative linguistics andIndology there and at theSorbonne. After two years inIndia, he became a lecturer onindian philosophy in theNetherlands. ProfessorOberhammer's researchinterests include epistemologyand logic of the brahmanicsystems of the first milleniumA.D.; the philosophy of theHindu systems, especially the

system of Visistadvaita*; andthe contrastive reflection of thereligious contents of Hinduismand Christianity. Some of hispublications areYamunamunis* Interpretattionvon Brahmasutram* 2,242-45.Eine Untersuchung zurPancaratra-Tradition* derRamanuja-Schule* (1971);Strukturen yogischerMeditation (1977); Materialienzur Geschichte der Ramanuja-

Schule*: Parasarabhattas*Tattvaratnakarah* (1979);(with H. Waldenfels)Oberlieferungsstruktur undOffenbarung. Aufri desPhänomens im Hinduismus mittheologischen Bemerkungen(1980); Wahrheit undTranszendenz. Ein Beitrag zurSpiritualität des Nyaya*(1984); Versuch einertranszendentalen Hermeneutikreligiöser Traditionen (1987).

G. Oberhammer is the editor ofthe publications of the DeNobili Research Library and ofthe Wiener Zeitschrift für dieKunde Südasiens.

André Padoux, directeur derecherche at the Centre Nationalde la Recherche Scientifique,Paris, and member of theFrench National Council forScientific Research, leads aresearch unit on Hinduism, inparticular Tantrism and

Mantrasastra*. His publishedworks in French and Englishare on these subjects. AnEnglish translation of a revisedversion of his doctoral thesis,Recherches sur la symboliqueet l'énergie de la parole danscertains textes tantriques(1963) is due to be published inthe United States.

Ludo Rocher is professor ofSanskrit and W. NormanBrown Professor of South

Asian Studies at the Universityof Pennsylvania. He receivedhis D.Jur. and Ph.D. from theUniversity of Ghent, Belgium.Before coming to Philadelphia,he taught at the University ofBrussels. Dr. Rocher's researchand publications includeclassical Indian studiesgenerally, with special emphasison classical, and colonial,Hindu law. He is the editor andtranslator of Sanskrit law texts;

his most recent book is ThePuranas* (1986), a volume inthe new "History of IndianLiterature."

Frits Staal, professor ofphilosophy and of South Asianlanguage at the University ofCalifornia (Berkeley), studiedand taught in Europe, Asia, andthe United States. His interestsrange from logic andmathematics to the humanities.His books in English include

Advaita and Neoplatonism(1961), Nambudiri VedaRecitation (1961), ExploringMysticism (1975), The Scienceof Ritual (1982), AGNI: The

Vedic Ritual of the Fire Altar(2 vol., 1983), Universals:Studies in Indian Logic andLinguistics (1988), and Kailas:Center of Asia (1988).

John Taber is assistantprofessor of religion at CaseWestern Reserve University.Dr. Taber received his D. Phil.in philosophy from theUniversität Hamburg. His

publications include articles onIndian philosophy andcontemporary philosophy ofreligion. He is the author ofTransformative Philosophy: AStudy of Sankara *, Fichte,and Heidegger (1983). Since1985, when he was a FulbrightScholar in Madras, India, Dr.Taber's research has focused onthe Purva* Mimamsa* schoolof Indian philosophy.

Wade T. Wheelock is associate

professor of religion and headof the department ofphilosophy and religion atJames Madison University inHarrisonburg, Virginia. Hereceived his Ph.D. in the historyof religions from the Universityof Chicago Divinity School in1978. Dr. Wheelock has writtenarticles on Vedic ritual as wellas theoretical and comparativestudies of ritual and language.

Kenneth G. Zysk is in the

department of history andphilosophy at Eastern MichiganUniversity. He received hisM.A. from the University ofCalifornia at Santa Barbara andhis Ph.D. from the AustralianNational University (Canberra).Dr. Zysk taught at theUniversity of Wisconsin atMadison and the University ofToronto and was researchhistorian at the University ofCalifornia at Los Angeles. His

background includes Indology,religious studies, and ancientmedicine (East and West) andarticles by him have beenpublished in American andinternational journals. Dr. Zyskis author of Religious Healingin the Veda (1985) and iscompleting a book on EarlyBuddhist Monastic Medicine.Since 1986, Dr. Zysk has beentreasurer and a member of theboard of directors of the

International Association forthe Study of Traditional AsianMedicine (North America).

Abbreviations Used In This Volume

Texts

KEY:Ar * =Aa.nyaka*;

B =Brahman*;

Bh =Bhasya*;

Dh =Dharma;

P =Purana*;

Sam* =Samhita

Sr* =Srauta;

Su* =Sutra*; T = Tantra;

Srauta; Sutra*;Fr. =French;

Ger. =German;

Skr. =Sanskrit;

AiB, Ar* Aitareya BrahmanaAp* Apastamba*, Apastambiya*AV Atharvaveda SamhitaBhagP* Bhagavata* PuranaBhG Bhagavad Gita*BrhU* Brhadaranyaka* UpanisadBsu* Brahmasutras*BVP BrahmavaivartaPChU Chandogya* UpanisadGrSu* Grhyasutras*KausB* Kausitaki* BrahmanaKausSu* Kausika* Sutras*

KausSu* Kausika* Sutras*KubjT Kubjikamata* TantraKulaT* Kularnava* TantraMahaU* Mahanarayana* UpanisadMaitU Maitrayani* UpanisadMhb Mahabharata*MM Maharthamanjari*NSA* Nityasodasikarnava*PpSara Prapancasara* (Tantra)

Ram * Ramayana*RV* Rgveda* SamhitaSatSam* Satsahasra* SamhitaSarTlk* Saradatilaka (Tantra)SB* Satapatha* BrahmanaSST* Saktisamgama* TanyaSV Samaveda* SamhitaSvetU* Svetasvatara* UpanisadSvT Svacchanda TantraTaitU Taittiriya* UpanisadTS Tantrasara*VaikhDhSu* Vaikhanasa* Dharmasutr*

VaikhDhSu* Vaikhanasa* Dharmasutr*VP Vakyapadiya*YH Yoginihrdaya*Ysu* Yogasutras*YV Yajurveda Samhita

Journals, Publishers, and Series

KEY:Diss. =Dissertation;

KS = KleineSchriften;

NY = NewYork City; Orig. =Original

Rei =Reissued;

UP = UniversityPress.

Reissued; Press.AA American AnthropologistAARP Art and Archeology Research Papers

ABORI Annals of the Bhandarkar OrientalResearch Institute (Poona)

ActaOr Acta Orientalia (L=Leiden;C=Copenhagen; B=Budapest)

AIOC All-India Oriental ConferenceAIIS American Institute for Indian Studies

AKM Abhandlungen fü die Kunde desMorgenlandes (DMG)

ALB Adyar Library Bulletim[=Brahmavidya] (Madras)

ALP Adyar Library Publications

ALP Adyar Library PublicationsALRC Adyar Library Research CenterALS Adyar Library SeriesArAs Arts Asiatiques (Paris)ArchOr Archiv Orientálni (Prague)

ARW Archiv für Religionswissenschaft(Berlin and Leipzig)

ASS Anandasrama* Sanskrit Series(Poona)

AUS Allahabad University Studies

BDCRIBulletin Deccan College (Post-Graduate and) Research Institute(Poona)

BÉFEO Bulletin de l'École françaised'êxtreme-orient (Hanoi)

BÉFEO d'êxtreme-orient (Hanoi)

BÉHÉ Bibliotheèque de l'École des hautes études

BIÉPHEBulletin de l'École pratique des hautesétudes

BeSS Benares Sanskrit SeriesBHU Benares Hindu UniversityBI Bibliotheca Indica (Calcutta)

BORI Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute(Poona)

BOS Bhandarkar Oriental Series

BSOAS Bulletin of the School of Oriental andAfrican Studies

BSPS Bombay Sanskrit and Prakrit SeriesBVB Bhartiya * Vidya* (Bhavan) (Bombay)

BVB Bhartiya * Vidya* (Bhavan) (Bombay)BVB Bhartiya Vidya SeriesCA Current Anthropology

CASS Center for Advanced Study in Sanskrit(Univ. of Poona)

CHI Cultural Heritage of IndiaChowSSeChowkhamba Sanskrit SeriesChowSSt Chowkhamba Sanskrit StudiesCIS Contributions to Indian Sociology

CNRS Centre national de recherche scientifique(Paris)

ColUP Columbia University Press (NY)CSS Calcutta Sanskrit SeriesCUP Cambridge University Press

Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften zu

DAWB Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften zuBerlin

DAWIO Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften zuBerlin, Institut für Orientforschung

DeNRL De Nobili Research LibraryDMG Deutschen Morgenländischen GesellschaftDRT Disputationes Rheno-trajectinaeÉFEO École française d'êxtreme-orientEIPh Encyclopedia of Indian PhilosophyÉPHE École pratique des hautes étudesÉVP Études védique et panineennes*EW East and West (Rome)FestRSD Festschrift Rajeswar Shastri DravidGOS Gaekwad's Oriental Series

GOS Gaekwad's Oriental Series

GTU Graduate Theological Union (Berkeley,Calif.)

HIL History of Indian LiteratureHJAS Harvard Journal of Asiatic StudiesHO Handbuch der OrientalistikHOS Harvard Oriental SeriesHR History of Religions (Chicago)HUP Harvard University PressIA Indian Antiquary (Bombay)IHQ Indian Historical QuarterlyIIJ Indo-Iranian Journal (The Hague)IJHS Indian Journal of the History of Science

IL Indian Linguistics [= j. of the LinguisticSociety of India] (Poona)

IL Society of India] (Poona)

ISIndische Studien (18 vols., Berlin: 1849-98)

IT lndologica TaurinensiaJA Journal Asiatique

JAAR Journal of the American Academy ofReligion

JAAS Journal of Asian and African Studies

JAIH Journal of Ancient Indian History(Calcutta)

JAOS Journal of the American Oriental Society(New Haven)

JBiRS Journal of the Bihar Research Society

JBORS Journal of the Biker and Orissa ResearchSociety (Patna/Bankipore)

JCyBRASJournal of the Ceylon Branch of the RoyalAsiatic Society

JDLCU Journal of the Department of Letters(Calcutta University)

JGJRI Journal of the Ganganatha Jha ResearchInstitute (Allahabad)

JIPh Journal of Indian Philosophy

JISOA Journal of the Indian Society of OrientalArt (Calcutta)

JOIB Journal of the Oriental Institute,Baroda

JOR Journal of Oriental Research

JOR Journal of Oriental Research

JRAI Journal of the Royal AnthropologicalInstitute

JRAS Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society

IRASBe Journal of the (Royal) Asiatic Society ofBengal

JSSR Journal for the Scientific Study ofReligion

JUB Journal of the University of BombayKPTT Kegan, Paul, Trench, Trubner and Co.KSS Kashi Sanskrit Series (Benares)KSTS Kashmir Series of Texts and StudiesMB Motilal BanarsidassMUSS Madras University Sanskrit SeriesNIA New Indian Antiquary (Bombay)

NIA New Indian Antiquary (Bombay)

Numen Numen, International Review for theHistory of Religions

OA Oriental Art (London)

OAW Österreichische Akademie derWissenschaften

OAZ Ostasiatische ZeitschriftOH Otto HarrassowitzORT Orientalia Rheno-TraiectinaOUP Oxford University Press

PAIOC Proceedings and Transactions of the All-India Oriental Confrence

PÉFEO Publications de l'École françaised'êxtreme-orient (Hanoi)

d'êxtreme-orient (Hanoi)PI Wittgenstein: Philosophical Investigations

PICI Publications de l'institut de civilisationindienne, série in-8

PIFI Publications de l'institut français d'indologie (Pondichéry)

POS Poona Oriental Series

PPMGM Praja * Pathashala* Mafia* la GranthaMala*

PUF Presses Universitaires de FranceRevPhil Revue PhilosophiqueRHR Revue de l'histoire des religionsRKP Routledge and Kegan PaulRO Rocznik OrientalistycznyRSO Rivista degli Studi OrinetaliRSR Religious Studies ReviewSBE Sacred Books of the EastSK * Srautakosa*SOR Serie orientale RomaSUNYP State University of New York PressTT Tantrik Texts (Calcutta, Madras)

TT Tantrik Texts (Calcutta, Madras)UCaP University of California PressUChP University of Chicago Press

VIJ Vishveshvaranand Indological Journal(Hoshiarpur)

VKAWAVerhandelingen der koninklijke Akademievan Wetenschapen te Amsterdam

VKNAWVerhandelingen der (koninklijke)Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschapen

VKSKS Veröffentlichungen der Kommission fürSprachen und Kulturen Südasiens

VPK Vaidika Padänukrama Kosa

VVRI Vishveshvaranand Vedic Research Institute(Hoshiarpur)Wiener Zeitschrifi für die Kunde des

WZKM Wiener Zeitschrifi für die Kunde desMorgenlandes

WZKSOWiener Zeitschrifi für die Kunde Süd- undOstasiens und Archiv für IndischePhilosophie

YUP Yale University Press

ZDMG Zeitschrift der DeutschenMorgenländischen Gesellschaft

ZII Zeitschrifi fur Indologie und Iranistik(Leipzig)

Bibliographical ListAbbott, Justin Edwards. 1933.The Keys of Power, A Study ofIndian Ritual and Belief. NY:E. P. Dutton.

Acharya *, Narayan Ram, ed.1948a. Brahmasutrabhasya* ofSankara*. Bombay: NirnayaSagar Press.

Ahirbudhnya Samhita*; seeKrishnamacharya, P. V., 1966.

Alper, Harvey Paul. 1979.''Siva* and the Ubiquity ofConsciousness: TheSpaciousness of an ArtfulYogi," JIPh 7:345-407.

. 1982. "What Sort of SpeechAct Is the Uttering of a Mantra."Paper read before the AmericanOriental Society (Austin,Texas).

. 1987. "Svabhavam*Avabhasasya* Vimarsam,'Judgment' (Vimarsa) as aTranscendental Category inUtpaladeva's Saivite*Theology," to appearFestschrift in Honor of LudoRocher.

Apadeva*. Mimarisa* Nyaya*Prakasa*; see Edgerton 1929.

Apate, V. S. 1929-34.Mimamsasutrabhasya* of

Sbara*, with theMimamsasutra* andKumarilabhatta's*Tantravarttika*, 6 vols. (ASS97) Poona.

Apel, Karl-Otto. 1973. "DesApriori derKommunikationsgemeinschaftund der Grundlagen der Ethik,Zum Problem einer rationalenBegründung der Ethik imZeitalter der Wissenschaft." InTransformation der

Philosophic, 358-435(Frankfurt); Eng. tr: Glyn Adeyand David Frisby, trs., "The APriori of the CommunicationCommunity and the Foundationof Ethics: The Problem of aRational Foundation of Ethicsin the Scientific Age." InTransformation of Philosophy(London: RKP, 1980), 225-300.

Arnold, E. Vernon. 1905. VedicMetre in Its HistoricalDevelopment. Cambridge:

Austin, J. L. 1961."Performative Utterances." InPhilosophical Papers (Oxford:OUP), 233-52.

. 1962. How to Do Things withWords ("The William JamesLectures," Harvard Univ.,1955), 2nd. ed. Cambridge,Mass.: HUP. (NY: OUP, GalaxyBooks, 1965); reissued 1975,1978.

Baker, G. P., and P.M. S.Hacker. 1980. Wittgenstein,Understanding, and Meaning(An Analytical Commentary onthe PhilosophicalInvestigations, vol. 1).Chicago: UChP.

Basu, Arabinda. 1956."Kashmir Saivism." In CHI4:79-98.

Belvalkar, Sripad Krsna. 1922."Literary Strata in the Rgveda

*," PAIOC 2:11-34.

Bergaigne, Abel. 1889."Recherches sur l'histoire de laliturgie védique," JA:5-32.

Berger, Peter L. 1968. TheSacred Canopy, Elements of aSocial Theory of Religion.Garden City, N.Y.: AnchorBooks, Doubleday and Co.

Beyer, Stephan. 1973. The Cultof Tara*, Magic and Ritual inTibet. Berkeley: UCaP.

Bhandu; see Vishva Bandu.1935-76.

Bharati, Agehananda. 1965.The Tantric Tradition. London:Rider and Co. Rep. 1970(Garden City, N.Y.: AnchorBooks); 1975 (NY: SamuelWeiser).

Bhatta, Laksmi Narasimha, ed.1972. Visvaksena* Samhita*.Tirupati: Kendriya SanskritVidyapeetha.

Bhawe, S. S. 1950. "TheConception of a Muse of Poetryin the Rgveda*," JUB 19, no.2:19-27.

. 1955. "An Interpretation ofRV* 10.109 (Brahma-Kilbisa),"in Kirfel Commem. Volume, 17-26.

. 1959. "Recent Trends in VedicResearch," PAIOC 20:29-30.

Bloomfield, Maurice. 1906. AVedic Concordance.

Cambridge, Mass.: HUP. Rep.1964 (New Delhi: MB).

. 1919. "The Mind as Wish-Carin the Veda," JAOS 39:280-82.

Bowra, Sir C. Maurice. 1966."Dance, Drama, and theSpoken Word." In Huxley1966, 387-92.

Brand, Gerd. 1979. TheEssential Wittgenstein, RobertE. Innis, tr. NY: Basic Books.Orig. Die Grundlegenden Texte

yon Ludwig Wittgenstein(Frankfurt: Suhrkamp Verlag,1975); UK: Basil Blackwell,1979.

Brough, John. 1971. "Somaand Amanita Muscaria,"BSOAS 34:331-62.

Broum, Cheever Mackenzie.1974. God as Mother: AFeminine Theology in India,An Historical and TheologicalStudy of the BrahmavaivartaPurana *. Hartford, Vt.: ClaudeStark.

Brown, W. Norman. 1968a."Agni, Sun, Sacrifice, andVac*: A Sacerdotal Ode byDirghatarmas* (Rig Veda

1.164)," JAOS 88:199-218. Rep.R. Rocher 1978, 53-78.

. 1968b. "The Creative Role ofthe Goddess Vac* in the RigVeda." In Pratidanam*,Indian, Iranian, and Indo-European Studies Presented toF. B. J. Kuiper (The Hague:Mouton, 1968), 393-97. Rep. R.Rocher 1978, 75-78.

Brunner(-Lachaux), Hélène.1963-77.

Somasambhupaddhati*,Rituels occasionels dans letradition sivaite* de l'Inde duSud selon Somasambhu*,texte, traduction et notes, 3vols. Pill 25.

. 1986. "Les membres de Siva,"Asiatische Studien/EtudesAsiatiques 40, no. 2: 89-132.

Caland, W., and V. Henry.1906. L'Agnistoma*:Description compléte de la

forme normale du sacrifice deSoma dans le culte védique, 2vols. Paris.

Canfield, John V. 1981.Wittgenstein, Language andWorld. Amherst: UMassP.

Carman, John Braisteal. 1974.The Theology of Pamanuja*,An Essay in Inter-religiousUnderstanding. (YalePublications in Religion 18)New Haven: YUP.

Cavell, Stanley. 1962. "TheAvailability of Wittgenstein'sLater Philosophy,"Philosophical Review 71:67-93.

Chatterji, Jagdish Chandra.1911. The Siva* Sutra*Vimarshini*, being the Sutras*of Vasu Gupta with theCommentary calledVimarshini* by Kshemaraja*(KSTS 1). Srinagar: Researchand Publication Dept., Jammuand Kashmir State; printed,

Bombay: Nirnaya Sagar Press.

. 1916. The Shiva Sutra*Varttika* by Bhaskara* (KSTS4). Srinagar: Research andPublication Dept., Jammu andKashmir State; printed,Allahabad: Indian Press. Orig.1914.

. 1962. Kashmir Shaivism(KSTS 2 [?]). Srinagar:Research and Publication Dept.,Jammu and Kashmir State;

printed, New Delhi: ServicesPress. Orig. 1914.

Chattopadhyaya, KsetresaChandra. 1935. "The Place ofthe Rigveda-Sarmhita* in theChronology of VedicLiterature," PAIOC 9:31-40.

Chomsky, Noam. 1964. CurrentIssues in Linguistic Theory.The Hague: Mouton.

. 1966. Cartesian Linguistics, AChapter in the History of

Rationalist Thought. NY andLondon: Harper and Row.

. 1968. Language and Mind.NY: Harcourt, Brace andWorld.

1975. Reflections onLanguage. NY: Pantheon.

Chomsky, N., and M. Halle.1978. The Sound Patterns ofEnglish. NY.

Coburn, Thomas B. 1984a.Devi-Mahatmya *, TheCrystallization of the GoddessTradition. Delhi: MB.

. 1984b. "'Scripture' in India:

Towards a Typology of theWord in Hindu Life," JAAR 52,no. 3:435-459.

Coope, Christopher, et al.1970. A WittgensteinWorkbook. Berkeley: UCaP.

Coward, Harold, and KrishnaSivaraman, eds. 1977.Revelation in Indian Thought.Emeryville, Calif.: DharmaPress.

Dallmayr, Fred R., and

Thomas A. McCarthy, eds.1977. Understanding andCritical Inquiry. Notre Dame,Ind.: Univ. of Notre DamePress.

Dandekar, R. N. 1969."Vasistha* as ReligiousConciliator." In K. R. CamaOriental Institute GoldenJubilee Volume (Bombay). K.R. Cama Oriental Institute.

. 1970. "Varuna*, Vasistha*

and Bhakti." In Anjali*, O. H.de A. Wijesekara FelicitationVolume, J. Tilakasiri, ed.,(Peradeniya: Univ. of Ceylon).

Dasgupta, Shashi Bhushan.1962. Obscure Religious Cults,2nd ed. Calcutta: Firma K. L.Mukhopadhyay. Orig. 1946; 3rded. 1969.

Demiéville, Paul 1930."Bombai." In Hôbôgirin,Dictionaire encyckopédique du

bouddhisme d'après lessources chinoises et japonaises1:93-113.

. 1980. "Notes on BuddhistHymnology in the Far East." InBuddhist Studies in Honor ofWalpola Rahula, S.Balasooriya, et al., eds. Londonand Sni* Lanika*.

Deppert, Joachim. 1977.Rudras Geburt, systematischeUntersuchungen zum In-zest in

der Mythologie derBrahmanas*. (Beiträge zurSüdasien-Forschung(Südasien-institut UniversitätHeidelberg) 28). Wiesbaden:Franz Steiner Verlag.

Diamond, Malcolm L., andThomas V. Litzenberg. Jr.1975. The Logic of God,Theology and Verification.Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.

Diehl, Carl Gustav. 1956.

Instrument and Purpose,Studies On Rites and Rituals inSouth India. Lund (Sweden):CWK Gleerup.

D'Sa, Francis X. 1980.Sabdapramanyam* in Sabara*and Kumarila*: Towards aStudy of the Mimamsa*Experience of Language. Wien:DeNRL 7.

Dumont, Louis. 1980. HomoHierarchicus, The Caste

System and Its Implications,complete and rev. ed.. Chicago:UChP. orig. Fr. ed. 1966 (Paris:Gallimard); First Eng. ed. 1970.

Dviveda, Vraj Vallabha. 1982.Satvata* Samhita*. Varanasi:The Yoga Tantra Department ofthe Sampurnananda* SanskritUniversity.

Edgerton, Franklin. 1928."Some Linguistic Notes on theMimamsa * System," Language4:171-77.

. 1929. Mimansa* Nyaya*Prakasa* or Apadevi*: ATreatise on the Mimansa*System by Apadeva*,Translated into English withan Introduction, TransliteratedSanskrit Text, and Glossarial

Index. New Haven: YUP.

Eggeling, Julius. 1882-1900.The Satapatha*Brahmana*,According to the Text of theMadhyandina* School, 5 vols.(SBE 11,12,26,41,43,44)Oxford: Clarendon Press. Rep.1963 (Delhi: MB).

Eliadle, Mircea. 1969. Yoga:Immortality and Freedom, 2nded. (Bollingen Series 56)Princeton: Princeton Univ.

Press. Ft. ed. 1945; First Eng.ed. 1958.

Faddegon, Barend. 1927."Ritualistic Dadism," ActaOr5:177-95.

Farquhar, J. N. 1967. AnOutline of the ReligiousLiterature of India. Delhi: MB.Orig. 1920.

Filliozat, Jean. 1961. "LesAgama* çivaites." InRauravagama*, N. R. Bhatt,

ed., PIFI 18, no. l:v-xv.

Finch, Henry Leroy. 1971.WittgensteinThe EarlyPhilosophy, An Exposition ofthe "Tractatus." New York:Humanities Press.

. 1977. WittgensteinThe LaterPhilosophy: An Exposition ofthe "PhilosophicalInverstigations." AtlanticHighlands, N.J.: HumanitiesPress.

Findly, Ellison Banks. 1981."Jatavedas* in the Rgveda*:The God of Generations,"ZDMG 131, no. 2:349-73.

Frauwallner, Erich. 1938."Bhavana* und Vidhih* beiMandanamisra*," WZKM45:212-52.

Garge, Damodar Vishnu. 1952.Citations in Sabara-Bhasya*.(Deccan College DissertationSeries 8) Poona: Deccan

College.

Geldner, Karl Friedrich. 1951-57. Der Rig-Veda. 4 vols. (HOS33-36) Cambridge, Mass.: HUP.

Chose, Aurobindo. 1956. Onthe Veda. Pondichery: SriAuorbindo Ashram.

Gier, Nicholas F. 1981.Wittgenstein andPhenomenology, AComparative Study of the LaterWittgenstein, Husserl,

Heidegger, and Merleau-Ponty. Albany: SUNY.

Gonda, Jan. 1941. "Ein NeuesLeid," WZKM 48:175-90. Rep.Gonda 1975b, 4.144-59.

. 1950. Notes on Brahman.Utrecht: J. L. Beyers.

. 1957. "The Vedic Concept ofAmhas*," IIJ 1:33-60. Rep.Gonda 1975b, 2.58-85.

. 1960-63. Die Religionen

Indiens (2 vols.). Stuttgart: W.Kohlhammer Verlag.

1963a. The Vision of the VedicPoets. The Hague: Mouton andCo.

. 1963b. "The Indian Mantra,"Oriens 16:244-97. Rep. Gonda1975b, 4.248, 301.

. 1967. The Meaning of theSanskrit Term Dhaman *.(VKNAW 73.2) Amsterdam:Noord-Hollandsche UitgeversMaatschappu.

. 1975a. Vedic Literature(Samhitas* and Brahmanas*).(HIL 1.1) Wiesbaden, OH.

. 1975b. Selected Studies,Presented to the Author by theStaff of the Oriental Institute,Utrecht University, on theOccasion of His SeventiethBirthday (4 vols.). Leiden: E. J.Brill.

. 1977a. Medieval ReligiousLiterature in Sanskrit. (HIL

2.1) Wiesbaden: OH.

. 1977b. The Ritual Sutras*.(HIL 1.2) Wiesbaden: OH.

. 1980a. Vedic Ritual: The Non-Solemn Rites. (HO 2.4.1)Leiden: E. J. Brill.

. 1980b. "The Satarudriya*." InSanskrit and Indian Studies,Essays in Honour of Daniel H.H. Ingalls, M. Nagatomi, et al.,eds. (Dordrecht: D. ReidelPublishing Co.), 75-91.

Goswami, M. L. 1978.Vidhiviveka of Mandanamisra*with the Nyayakanika* ofVacaspatimisra*. Banares:Tara Publications.

Goudriaan, Teun. 1978. Maya*Divine and Human, A Study ofMagic and Its ReligiousFoundations in Sanskrit Texts,with particular attention to afragment on Visnu's* Mayapreserved in Bali. Delhi: MB.

Goudriaan, T., and SanjuktaGupta. 1981. Hindu Tantricand Sakta* Literature. (HIL2.2) Wiesbaden: OH.

Gren-Eklund, G. 1978-79. "AnUpanisad* of Saman*."Orientalia Suecana 27-28, 148-58 (?).

van Gulik, Robert Hans. 1956.Siddam: An Essay on theHistory of Sanskrit Studies inChina and Japan. (Sarasvati

Vihara Series 36) Nagpur: Int.Acad. of Indian Culture. Rep1980 (New Delhi: Mrs. SharadaRani).

Güntz, Th. 1861. DerGeisteskranke in seinenSchriften. Thonberg beiLeipzig.

Gupta, Sanjukta. 1971."Caturvyuha* and theVisakhayupa*," ALB: 35.

. 1972. Laksmi* Tantra: A

Pancaratra* Text: Translationand Notes. Leiden: E. J. Brill.

Gupta, S., Dirk Jan Hoens,and Teun Goudriaan. 1979.Hindu Tantrism. (HO 2.4.2)Leiden: E. J. Brill.

Hacker, Paul. 1972. "Notes onthe Mandukyopanisad* andSankara's* Agama-*

sastravivarana *." In IndiaMaior, Congratulatory VolumePresented to J. Gonda, J.Ensink and P. Gaeffke, eds.(Leiden: Brill), 115-32. Rep.KS:252-69.

Halbfass, Wilhelm. 1980."Karma, Apurva* and 'Natural'Causes: Observations on theGrowth and Limits of theTheory of Samsara*." In

Karma and Rebirth inClassical Indian Traditions,W. D. O'Flaherty, ed. (Chicago:UChP), 268-302.

Hallett, Garth. 1967.Wittgenstein's Definition ofMeaning and Use. NY:Fordham Univ. Press.

Hardy, Friedhelm. 1983.Viraha-bhakti, The EarlyHistory of Krsna* Devotion inSouth India. New Delhi: OUP.

Harries, Karsten. 1968. "TwoConflicting Interpretations ofLanguage in Wittgentstein'sInvestigations," Kant Studien59:397-409.

Hawley, John Stratton, andDonna Marie Wulff, eds. 1982.The Divine Consort: Radha*and the Goddesses of India.Berkeley: Berkeley ReligiousStudies Series, GTU.

Heesterman, J. C. 1962.

"Vratya* and Sacrifice," IIJ 6:1-37.

. 1964. "Brahmin, Ritual andRenouncer." WZKSO 8:1-31.

. 1967. "The Case of theSevered Head." WZKSO 11:22-43.

High, Dallas M. 1967.Language, Persons, and Belief.NY: OUP.

. 1969. New Essays on

Religious Language. NY: OUP.

Hillebrandt, Alfred. 1880. Dasaltindische Neu- undVollmondopfer. Jena: G.Fischer [1879].

van der Hoogt, J. M. 1930. TheVedic Chant Studied in ItsTextual and Melodic Form.Wageningen (Thesis.) H.Veenman [1929].

Howard, Wayne. 1983. "TheMusic of Nambudiri

Unexpressed Chant(aniruktagana*)." In Staal1983a 2.311-42.

Hudson, W. Donald. 1968.Ludwig Wittgenstein, theBearing of his Philosophyupon Religious Belief.Richmond: John Knox Press.

. 1975. Wittgenstein andReligious Belief. NY: St.Martin's Press.

Huizinga, Johan. 1955. Homo

Ludens: The Play Element inCulture. NY: Beacon Press.Orig. Dutch ed. Haarlem, 1938;UK: London 1949.

Hunter, J. F. M. 1971. "'Formsof Life' in Wittgenstein'sPhilosophical Investigations."In Essays on Wittgenstein, E.D. Klemke, ed., (Urbana: Univ.Illinois Press), 273-97.

Huxley, Sir Julian. 1966. "ADiscussion on Ritualization of

Behaviour in Animals andMan," PhilosophicalTransactions of the RoyalSociety of London Series B, no.772, 251:247-526.

Ikari, Yasuke. 1983. "RitualPreparation of the Mahavira *and Ukha* Pots." In Staal1983a, 168-77.

Jakobson, Roman, and M.Halle. 1960. Grundlagen derSprache. Berlin.

James, William. 1902. TheVarieties of ReligiousExperience. NY: RandomHouse, Modem Library.

Jamison, Stephanie W. 1979."Remarks on the Expression ofAgency with the Passive inVedic and Indo-European," Z.für vergleichendeSprachforschung 93, no. 2:196-219.

Jayakhya* Samhita*; seeKrishnamacarya, E., 1931.

Jayanta Bhatta*.Agamaddambara*; seeRaghavan and Anantalal

Thakur, 1964.

Jha, Ganganath. 1911. ThePrabhakara* School ofPurva*-Mimamsa*. Allahabad.Rep. 1978 (Delhi: MB).

. 1933. Sabara*-bhasya* (3vols.). (GOS 66, 70, 73)Baroda: Oriental Institute. Rep.1973-74.

. 1942. Purva*-Mimama* in ItsSources. Varanasi: BHU. 2nded. 1964.

Johnson, Willard. 1980. Poetryand Speculation of the Rg*Veda. Berkeley: UCaP.

Juergensmeyer, Mark, and N.Gerald Barrier, eds. 1979. SikhStudies, ComparativePerspectives on a ChangingTradition. (Berkeley ReligiousStudies Series) Berkeley: GTU.

Kakar, Sudhir. 1982. Shamans,Mystics and Doctors. APsychological Inquiry into

India and Its HealingTraditions. NY: Alfred A.Knopf.

Kane, Pandurang Vaman.1930-62. History ofDharmasastra* (5 vols. in 7pts: vol. 2.2 in 1941; vol. 5.2in 1962). 2nd ed., 5 vols in 8pts; 1968-74 Poona: BORI.

Kashikar, C. G., and R. N.Dandekar. 1958-70.Srautakosa*, Encyclopaedia of

Vedic Sacrificial Ritual (4vols.). Poona: VaidikaSamsodhana* Mandala*.

Keightley, Alan. 1976.Wittgenstein, Grammar, andGod. London: Epworth Press.

Keith, Arthur Berriedale. 1914.The Veda of the Black YajusSchool Entitled Taittiriya*Sanhita* (2 vols.). (HOS 18-19) Cambridge, Mass.: HUP.Rep. Delhi: MB 1967.

. 1921. Karmamimamsa*.London: OUP.

van Kooij, K. R. 1972. Worshipof the Goddess According tothe Kalikapurana*, Part I, ATranslation with anIntroduction and Notes ofChapters 54-69. (ORT 14)Leiden: Brill.

Krishnamacarya, Embar, ed.1931. Jayakhya* Samhita*.(GOS 54) Baroda: Oriental

Institute.

Krishnamacharya, Pandit V.,ed. 1959. Laksmi * Tantra, aPancaratra* Agama*. (ALS87) Madras: Adyar Library.Rep. 1975.

. 1966. Ahirbudhnya Samhita*(2 vols.). Madras: AdyarLibrary. Orig. 1916 (M.D.Ramanujacharya*).

Ksemaraja*. Siva* Sutra*Vimarshini*; see Chatterji 1911.

Kuiper, Franciscus BernardusJacobus. 1960. "The AncientIndian Verbal Contest," IIJ 4,no. 4:217-81.

Kumarila*. Tantravarttika*;see Apate 1929-34.

Kunjunni Raja, K. 1969. IndianTheories of Meaning, 2nd ed.Madras: Adyar Library andResearch Center. Orig. 1963.

Kuroda, S.-Y. 1975."Réflexions sur les fondements

de la théorie de la narration." InLangue, discours, société:Pour Émile Benveniste (Paris).Eng. tr. "Reflections on theFoundations of NarrativeTheory." In Pragmatics ofLanguage and Literature, T.A. van Dijk, ed. (Amsterdam),107-40.

. 1979. "Some Thoughts on theFoundations of Language Use,"Linguistics and Philosophy3:1-17.

Laksmi* Tantra; seeKrishnamacharya, P. V., 1959.

Lamotte, Étienne. 1966-76. LeTraité de la grande vertu desagesse de Nagarjuna*(Mahaprajnaparamitasastra*),4 vols. Louvain: vols. 1 and 2,Orig. 1944-49, vol. 4 in 1976.

Laugaksi* Bhaskara*.Arthasamgraha; see Thibaut1882.

Limaye, V. P., and R. D.Vadekar, eds. 1958. EighteenPrincipal Upanisads. Poona:Vaidika Samsodhana Mandala.

Lucier, Pierre. 1973. "Le Statutdu langage religieux dans laphilosophie de LudwigWittgenstein," Sciencesreligieuses [Studies inReligion] 3, no. 1:14-28.

Macdonell, A. A. 1897. VedicMythology. Strassburg: K. J.

Trübner.

. 1900. A History of SanskritLiterature. London: WilliamHeinemann Ltd.

. 1916. A Vedic Grammar forStudents. London: OUP.

Mahabharata*; seeSukthankar, Belvalkar, Vaidya,et al., 1927-66.

Mandanamisra*. Vidhiviveka;see Goswami 1978.

Mandlebaum, David. 1966."Transcendental and PragmaticAspects of Religion," AA68:1174-91.

May, L. C. 1956. "A Survey ofGlossolalia and RelatedPhenomena in Non-ChristianReligions," AA 58:75-96.

McDermott, A. C. S. 1975."Towards a Pragmatics ofMantra Recitation," JIPh 3:283-98.

Miller, G. A., and N. Chomsky.1963. Handbook ofMathematical Psychology, II.NY.

Muktananda, Swami. 1972. Sri* Gurugita*, Transliterationand English Translation.

Ganeshpuri, Maharashtra:Gurudev Suddha Peeth.

Murti, T. R. V. 1955. TheCentral Philosophy ofBuddhism. London: Allen andUnwin.

. 1974. "Some Comments onthe Philosophy of Language,"JIPh 2:320-35.

Murty, K. Satchidananda.1959. Revelation and Reason inAdvaita Vedanta*. NY:ColUP.

Orig. Ind. ed. (Waltair: AndhraUniv. Press). Rep. 1974 (Delhi:MB).

Narayanan, Vasudha. 1982."The Goddess Sri*: TheBlossoming Lotus and BreastJewel of Visnu*." In Hawleyand Wulff 1982, 224-37.

Nettl, B. 1953. "Observationson Meaningless Peyote SongTexts," Journal of AmericanFolklore 66:161-64.

Nielsen, Kai. 1967."Wittgensteinian Fideism,"Philosophy 42:191-209.

. 1973. "The Challenge ofWittgenstein: An Examinationof His Picture of ReligiousBelief," Sciences religieuses[Studies in Religion] 3, no.1:29-46.

Nottebohm, F. 1970."Ontogeny of Bird Song,"Science 167:950-56.

Nowotny, Fausta. 1957. "DasPujavidhinirupana* destrimalla," IIJ 1:109-54.

Oberhammer, Gerhard. 1977.Strukturen yogischerMeditation, Untersuchungenzur Spiritualität des Yoga.(VKSKS 13) (OAW phil-histkl. 322) Wein: Verlag derOAW.

. 1978. Transzendenzerfahrung,Vollzugshorizont des Heils.

(DeNRL 5) Wien: Institut fürIndologie der Univ. Wien.

. 1984. Wahrheit undTranzendenz, Ein Beitrag zurSpiritualität des Nyaya*.(VKSKS 18) (OAW phil-histkl. 424) Wein: OAW.

Oertel, Hanns. 1930. Zurindischen Apologetik. (Beiträgezur Sprachwissenschaft undReligionsgeschichte 5)Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.

O'Flaherty, Wendy Doniger.1981. The Rig Veda. NY:Penguin Books.

Oldenberg, Hermann. 1888."Über die Liedverfasser desRigveda," ZDMG 42:199-247.

Padmanabha, Seetha, ed.1969. Sriprasna* Samhita*.Tirupati: Kendriya SanskritVidyapeetha.

Padoux, André. 1963.Recherches sur la symbolique

et l'énergie de la parole dans

certains textes tantriques.(PICI 21) Paris: Éditions deBoccard. 2nd ed. 1975; Rev.Eng. ed. forthcoming.

. 1978a. ''Contributions à l'étudedu mantrasastra *: I, Lasélection des mantra(mantroddhara*)," BÉFEO65:65-85.

. 1978b. "Some Suggestions onResearch into Mantra," IT

6:235-39.

. 1980. "Contributions à l'étudedu mantrasastra*: II nyasa*:L'imposition rituelle desmantra," BÉFEO 67:59-102.

. 1981. "A Survey of TantricHinduism for the Historian ofReligion," HR 20, no. 4:345-60.

Pandey, Kanti Chandra. 1954.Bhaskari*, Vol. III: An EnglishTranslation of the Isvara*Pratyabhijna* Vimarsini* in

the Light of the Bhaskai* withan Outline of [the] History ofSaiva* Philosophy. (ThePrincess of Wales SaraswatiBhavana Texts 84) Lucknow:Superintendent, Printing andStationery, U. P.

Parpola, Asko. 1981. "On thePrimary Meaning andEtymology of the SacredSyllable OM," Proc. of theNordic South Asia Conference(Helsinki, 1980).

. 1983. "Jaiminiya* Srauta*Sutra* on the Agnicayana, withBhavatrata's* Commentary," inStaal 1983a, 700-36.

Pensa, Corrado. 1969. "On thePurification Concept in IndianTradition with Special Regardto Yoga," EW 19:194-228.

Pepper, Stephen C. 1942.World Hypotheses, A Study inEvidence. Berkeley: UCaP.

Phillipa, D. Z. 1970. Faith andPhilosophical Enquiry.London: RKP.

Popkin, Richard H. 1979. TheHistory of Scepticism, fromErasmus to Spinoza. Berkeley:UCaP.

Raghavan, V., and AnantalalThakur, eds. 1964.Agamaddambara* OtherwiseCalled sanmatanataka* ofJayanta Bhatta*. Dharbhanga.

Rangachari, K. 1931. The Sri*Vaisnava* Brahmans. (Bull. ofthe Madras GovernmentMuseum, n. s., gen sect., II.2)Madras.

Rastogi, Navjivan. 1979. TheKrama Tantricism of Kashmir,Historical and GeneralSources, vol. 1. Delhi: MB.

Renou, Louis. 1948-49. "Sur lanotion de Brahman" (incollaboration with L. Silburn),

JA 236-37:7-46.

. 1949a. "La valeur du silencedans le culte védique" JAOS69:11-18.

. 1949b. "Un Hymne à énigmesdu Rgveda* [1.152]" (incollaboration with L. Silburn),J. de psychologie normale etpathologique 42:266-73.

. 1953a. "Le passage desBrahmana* aux Upanisad*,"JAOS 73:138-44.

1953b. "Études védiques 3.e:Kavi," JA 241:180-83.

. 1954a. "Les vers insérés dansla prose védique." In Asiatica,Festschrift Friedrich Weller,528-34.

. 1954b. "Les pouvoirs de laparole dans le hymnesvédiques," Samjna-Vyakarana(Studia IndologicaInternationalia) 1:1-12.

. 1954c. Vocabulaire du rituelvédique. (Collections devocabulaires techniques duSanskrit 1) Paris: Librairie C.Klincksieck.

. 1954d. "Nirukta and Aniruktain Vedic" (in collaboration withL. Silburn). In Sarupa *-Bharati (Laksman* SarupMemorial Volume) (Hosiarpur:VVRI), 68-79.

. 1955-69. Études védiques et

panineennes*, 17 fascs. (PICI1-2 [1955, 956], 4, 6, 9-10, 12,14, 16-18, 20, 22-23, 26-27, 30)Paris: É. E. de Boccard.

. 1960a. Le destin du Vedadans l'Inde. (ÉVP 6 [PICI 10])Paris: É. E. de Boccard.

. 1962. "Recherches sur le rituelvédique: la place du Rig-Vedique dans l'ordonnance duculte," JA 250, no. 2:161-84.

Rgveda* Samhita*, bhasya*,

and khila; see Sonatakke andKashikar 1933-51.

Ricoeur, Paul. 1977. The Ruleof Metaphor, Multi-disciplinary Studies of theCreation of Meaning inLanguage. Robert Czerny withKathleen McLaughlin and JohnCostello, trs. Toronto: Univ.Toronto Press. Orig. Fr. ed.1975, La Métaphor vive (Paris:Éditions du Seuil); pap. ed.1981.

Rilke, Rainer Maria. 1938.Briefe aus den Jahren 1914his. 1921. Ruth Sieber-Rilkeand Carl Sieber, eds. Leipzig:Insel-Verlag.

Rocher, Rosane, ed. 1978.India and Indology, SelectedArticles by W. Norman Brown.Delhi: MB for the AIIS.

Ruegg, David Seyfort. 1969. Lathéorie de Tathagatagrabha*et du gotra. (PÉFEO 70) Paris.

. 1973. Le traité duTathagatagarbha* de Bu stonRin chen grub. (PÉFEO 88)Paris.

Sabara*.Mimamsasutrabhasya*; seeApate 1929-34; Jha 1933.

Sanderson, Alexis. 1986."Purity and Power Among theBrahmans of Kashmir." In TheCategory of the Person:Anthropological and

Philosophical Perspectives,Michael Carruthers, StevenCollins, and Steven Lukes, eds.(Cambridge: CUP.)

Sankara*.Brahmasutrabhasya*; seeAcharya* 1948a.

Sarup, Laksman. 1927. TheNighantu* and the Nirukta,The Oldest Indian Treatise onEytmology, Philology, andSemantics. Lahore: Univ. of the

Panjab. Rep. 1967 (New Delhi:MB).

Satvata * Samhita*; seeDviveda 1982.

Schmidt, Hanns-Peter. 1959."Review of Renou, EVP 1-2,"ZDMG 109:442-49.

Schoterman, J. A. 1982. TheSatsahasra* Samhita*,chapters 1-5. (ORT 27). Leiden:E. J. Brill.

Schrader. Friedrich Otto. 1916.

Introduction to thePancaratra* and theAhirbudhnya Samhita*. (ALS5) Adyar. Rep. 1973.

von Schroeder, L. 1887.Indiens Literatur und Cultur inhistorischer Entwicklung.Leipzig.

Schultz, Friedrich August.1958. Die philosophisch-theologischen Lehren desPasupata*Systems nach dem

Pancarthabhasya* und derRatnatika*. Walldorf-Hessen:Verlag für Orientkunde Dr. H.Vorndran.

Searle, John R. 1969. SpeechActs: An Essay in thePhilosophy of Language.Cambridge: CUP.

. 1971a. "What Is a SpeechAct?" In Searle 1971b, 39-53.

. 1971b. The Philosophy ofLanguage. Oxford: OUP.

. 1979a. "A Taxonomy ofIllocutionary Acts." In Searle1979b, 1-29.

. 1979b. Expression andMeaning. Cambridge: CUP.

Sharma, B. R. 1972. "OnMatiIn the Rgveda*," Vimarsa*1, no. 1:37-44.

Shastri, Madhusudan Kaul, ed.1925. The Shivasutra*-Vartikam* by Varadaraja*.

(KSTS 43) Srinagar: KashmirPratap Steam Press.

Sherry, Patrick. 1977.Religions, Truth andLanguage-Games. NY: Harper.

Shrinivas Iyengar, P. T. 1912.The Shiva-Sutra-Vimarsini ofKsemaraja. (Indian ThoughtSeries 2) Allahabad: IndianThought.

Silburn, Lilian. 1961. LeVijnana* bairava, texte traduit

et commenté. (PICI 15) Paris:É. E. de Boccard.

. 1980. Études sur le sivaisme*du Cachemire, École Spanda:Sivasutra* et Vimarsini* deKsemaraja*. (PICI 47) Paris: É.E. de Boccard.

. 1983. La Kundalini*, oul'énergie des profondeurs,Étude d'ensemble d'après lestextes du Sivaisme* duKasmir*. Paris: Les Deux

Océans.

Singh, Jaideva. 1979. Siva*Sutras*, The Yoga of SupremeIdentity. Delhi: MB.

. 1980. Spanda-Karikas*, theDivine Creative Pulsation, theKarikas* and the Spanda-nirnaya* translated intoEnglish. Delhi: MB.

Smith, H. Daniel. 1975-80. ADescriptive Bibliography of thePrinted Texts of the

Pancaratragama*, 2 vols.(GOS 158, 168) Baroda.

Sonatakke, N. S., and C. G.Kashikar, eds. 1933-51. Rgveda* Samhita* With theCommentary of Sayanacarya*,5 vols. Poona: VaidikaSamsodhana Mandala (VedicResearch Institute).

. 1946. Rgvedakhila*. Poona:Vaidika SamsodhanaMandala.

Specht, Ernst Konrad, and D.

E. Walford, trs. 1969. TheFoundations of Wittgenstein'sLate Philosophy. NY: Barnesand Noble. Get. ed. 1963.

Srautakosa*; see Kashikar andDandekar 1958-70.

Sriprasna* Samhita*; seePadmanabha 1969.

Staal, J. Frits. 1959. "Uber dieIdee der Toleranz imHinduismus." Kairos.Zeitschrift für

Religionswissenschaft undTheologie 1:215-18.

. 1961. Nambudiri VedaRecitation. The Hague:Mouton.

. 1967. Word Order in Sanskritand Universal Grammar.(Foundations of Language,Supplementary Series 5)Dordrecht: D. Reidel.

. 1969. "Sanskrit Philosophy ofLanguage." In Current Trends

in Linguistics (Linguistics inSouth Asia), T. A. Sebeok etal., eds., pp. 449-531. (TheHague: Mouton).

. 1975a. "The Concept ofMetalanguage and Its IndianBackground," JIPh 3:215-54.

. 1975b. Exploring Mysticism:A Methodological Essay.Berkeley: UCaP.

. 1978. "The Ignorant Brahminof Agnicayana," ABORI

59:337-48.

. 1979a. "The Meaninglessnessof Ritual," Numen 26, no. 1:2-22.

. 1979b. "The Concept ofScripture in the IndianTradition." In Juergensmeyerand Barrier 1979, 121-24.

. 1979c. "Oriental Ideas and theOrigin of Language," JAOS99:1-14.

. 1980. "Ritual Syntax." InSanskrit and Indian Studies,Essays in Honor of Daniel H.H. Ingalls (Studies of ClassicalIndia 2), Masatoshi Nagatomiet al., ed., (Dordrecht: D.Reidel), 119-42.

. 1982. The Science of Ritual.(Post-graduate and ResearchDepartment Series 15 Prof. P.D. Gune Memorial Lectures,first series) Poona: BORI.

. 1983a. Agni, The Vedic Ritualof the Fire Altar (incollaboration with C. V.Somayajipad and M. Itti RaviNambudiri), 2 vols. Berkeley:Asian Humanities Press.

. 1983b. "Moon Chants, SpaceFillers and Flow of Milk." InFelicitation Volume ProfessorE. R. Sreekrishna Sarma(Madras: KalakshetraPublications Press), 17-30. Rep.this volume, as the Appendix to

Chapter Two.

1984a. "Ritual, Mantras. andthe Origin of Language." InAmrtadhara *, Professor R. N.Dandekar Felicitation Volume(Poona), 403-25.

. 1984b. "The Search forMeaning: Mathematics, Music,and Ritual," American Journalof Semiotics, 2, 4:1-57.

. 1985. "Substitutions deparadigmes et religiouns

d'Asie," Cahiers d'Extreme-Asie1:21-57.

. 1987. "The Sound ofReligion," Numen 33:33-64,185-224.

. 1988a. Rules WithoutMeaning. Essays on Ritual,Mantras and the Science ofMan. NY: Peter Lang.

. 1988b. Jouer avec le feu.Practique et théorie du rituelvédique. Paris: PICI.

. 1988c. Universals. Studies inIndian Logic and Linguistics.Chicago: UChP.

Steinkellner, Ernst. 1978a."Yogische Erkenntnis alsProblem im Buddhismus." InOberhammer 1978, 121-34.

. 1978b. "Remarks on TantricHermeneutics." In Proceedingsof the Csoma de KorosMemorial Symposium, L. Liget,ed. (Budapest), 445-58.

Strauss, Otto. 1927a."Altindischen Spekulationenüber die Sprache und ihreProbleme," ZDMG 81:99-151.

. 1927b. "Mahabhasya* adPanini* 4,1,3 und seineBedeutung für die Geschichteder indischen Logik." In AusIndiens Kultur: Festgabe fürRichard von Garbe(Veröffentlichungen desIndogermanischen Seminarsder Universität Erlangen 3), J.

Negelein, ed., (Erlangen: Palmund Ecke), 84-94.

Strawson, P. F. 1966. "Reviewof PI." In Wittgenstein, thePhilosophical Investigations, ACollection of Critical Essays,George Pitcher, ed. (GardenCity, N.Y.: Anchor Books).Orig. 1954.

Sukthankar, V. S., S. K.Belvalkar, P. L. Vaidya, et al.1927-66. The Mahabharata*,

for the First Time CriticallyEdited, 19 vols, in 22 parts.Poona: BORI.

Taittiriya* Sanhita*; see Keith1914.

Tambiah, Stanley Jeyaraja.1968a. "The Magical Power ofWords," Man 3, no. 2:175-208.Rep. Tambiah 1985, 17-59.

. 1968b. "Literacy in a BuddhistVillage in North-EastThailand." In Goody 1983, 85-

131.

. 1985. Culture, Thought, andSocial Action: AnAnthropological Perspective.Cambridge, Mass.: HUP.

Thibaut, G. 1882.Arthasamgraha* of Laugaksi*Bhaskara*. (BESS 4) Varanasi.

Thieme, Paul. 1931."Grammatik und Sprache, einProblem der altindischenSprachwissenschaft," ZII 8:23-

32. Rep. KS, 524-27.

1952. "Brahman," ZDMG102:91-129.

. 1957a. "Review of Renou,EVP (1955-69)," JAOS 77:51-56.

. 1957b. "Vorzarathustrischesbei den Zarathustriern und beiZarathrustra," ZDMG 107:67-104.

Thorpe, W. H. 1966.

"Ritualization in Ontogeny, II:Ritualization in the IndividualDevelopment of Bird Song." InHuxley 1966, 351-58.

Torella, Rafaele. 1979.Sivasutra * con il commento diKsemaraja*, traduzione dalsanscrito, introduzione e note.

Toulmin, Stephen. 1969."Ludwig Wittgenstein,"Encounter 32, no. 1:58-71.

Trigg, Roger. 1973. Reason

and Commitment. Cambridge:CUP.

Upadhyaya, Suresh A. 1961."The Word Manisa* in theRgveda*," PAIOC 21:21-30.

Vacaspatimisra*.Nyayakanika*; see Goswami1978.

Velankar, H. D. 1966. "Kaviand Kavya* in the Rgveda*,"PAIOC 22:253-58.

Venkatachari, K. K. A. 1978.Srivaisnava* Manipravala*.(Ananthacharya ResearchInstitute Series 3) Bombay.

Vishva Bandhu. 1935-76. AVedic Word Concordance[Vaidika-padanukramakosa*].5 vols. in 16 pts. Hoshiarpur:VVRI publications, SantakutiVedic Series (2.2 in 1936, 3.2 in1945, 1.4 in 1959). 2nd rev.eds: vols. 2.1-2, 1973 [1935-36]; vol. 1.1 1976 [1942].

Visvaksena* Samhita*; seeBhatta 1972.

Wayman, Alex. 1976. "TheSignificance of Mantras, fromthe Veda down to BuddhistTantric Practice," IT 3:483-97.Orig. ALB 39 (1975):65-89.Rep. Way-man 1984, 413-30.

. 1984. Buddhist Insight,Essays by Alex Wayman.George Elder, ed. (Religions ofAsia Series 5) Delhi: MB.

Weir, R. 1970. Language in theCrib. The Hague: Mouton.

Wheelock, Wade T. 1980. "ATaxonomy of the Mantras inthe New- and Full-MoonSacrifice," HR 19, no. 4:349-69.

. 1982. "The Problem of RitualLanguage: From Information toSituation," JAAR 50, no. 1:49-71.

Whittaker, John H. 1978."Wittgenstein and Religion:

Some Later Views of His LaterWork," RSR 4, no. 3:188-93.

Winch, Peter. 1976. The Idea ofa Social Science and ItsRelation to Philosophy.London: RKP. Orig. 1958.

[Harvey_P

Documents

Transcript of [Harvey_P